Read: 437 times
|#185766 - What a bunch of fatty sausage...|
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Adam Blue said:
Michael Karas said that PNP type transistor can be used.
Yes, I know that solution. However, I don’t want to use Low-Active Design.
And why not? If you come and tell me it is because you want '1' value in software to represent "relay energized" I'll say 'get over it'. Use the instruction that inverts the bits before you write them to the port register.
Assume that; There is can be cold solder betwen 8051 I/O pin and transistor ‘s Base pin. When I/O pin is logic-1. Due to cold solder, PNP transistor’s Base pin will be logic-0 and RELAY ACTIVE… (Who can warrant that such an event won’t happen.)
What a crock full of fatty sausage!! If your supposed 'cold solder joint' is exhibiting as an open circuit the base of the PNP will not be low in the circuits that I showed. It will be pulled to the emitter by the base-emitter resistor when the base resistor connection is open. Get a clue as to how the circuit works before you go try to find weak fatty sausage type arguments.
Besides that, what others of the more than several dozen types of failure modes that could happen have you bothered to analyze? An ESD jolt could just as easily fuse the output of the MCU to a shorted high or shorted low. Roll that up with the sausage.
Low-Active design is not secure for that kind of circuits.
More fatty sausage malarkey. You know, there was a time when real professional design engineers were making boards full of gate and flip-flop IC logic, that it was actually considered bad form to design any circuits with active high signalling. Especially for signals that travelled any distance. The idea that MCU port pins have to be at high level '1's to represent 'active logic" is a silly convention that is almost entirely without merit.
What can I say ???
You could resign from your ridiculous position and admit that you are on the wrong track. Hey, I tried to help you out when you were already getting cooked in this thread before I posted. Now you maybe should just take your cheap fatty sausage, mix it with some BS and get to cooking that up.
|Power-On Port Status Problem||Adam Blue||01/30/12 08:42|
|Wrong idea||Per Westermark||01/30/12 08:48|
|you will not||Erik Malund||01/30/12 08:49|
|you are not the only one||Erik Malund||01/30/12 09:18|
|ATMEL be ashamed||Adam Blue||01/30/12 15:05|
|No, YOU should be ashamed...||Kai Klaas||01/30/12 16:15|
|Nonsense!||Andy Neil||01/30/12 16:46|
|PIC Does so||Neil Kurzman||01/30/12 23:08|
|Oh really??||Michael Karas||01/31/12 07:46|
|"Glitch" in the sense of kind of "setback in a plane"?||Kai Klaas||01/31/12 10:19|
|Try These Ideas||Michael Karas||01/30/12 17:21|
|"Glitch"||Adam Blue||02/01/12 13:12|
|what is not “ATMEL true”.||Erik Malund||02/01/12 13:37|
|I think you are making excuses||Erik Malund||02/01/12 13:41|
|Oh, boohoo!||Rob Klein||02/01/12 14:04|
|What a bunch of fatty sausage...||Michael Karas||02/01/12 14:59|
|"very easy problem"||Andy Neil||02/01/12 15:02|
|Power-On Glitch||Adam Blue||02/01/12 15:40|
|Nonsense - again||Andy Neil||02/01/12 16:28|
|Please explain what the "power-on glitch" is ...||Richard Erlacher||02/01/12 19:26|
|Into The Frying Pan||Michael Karas||02/01/12 20:52|
|Power-on problem...||Kai Klaas||02/02/12 05:55|
|You are still blaming the tools||Per Westermark||02/03/12 05:55|
|Design the hardware first.||David Prentice||02/02/12 07:21|
|do not Design the hardware first.||Erik Malund||02/02/12 07:30|
|Power-On Glitch||Adam Blue||02/02/12 15:07|
|that you had the worst possible reset circuit||Erik Malund||02/02/12 15:59|
|RC-reset...||Kai Klaas||02/02/12 17:20|
|Sorry, double post, don't know why...||Kai Klaas||02/02/12 17:21|
|No, you're not the only one||Richard Erlacher||02/02/12 21:12|
|Would I Hire?||Michael Karas||02/02/12 22:44|
|incidentially||Erik Malund||02/03/12 07:09|
|Power On satus Problem||Satish S Munot||02/29/12 10:16|
|echo, echo, echo||Erik Malund||02/29/12 10:30|