Help to design a PCB for my PI design!

[okantex]

Hi ,
what about simulation of this schemetic. does it work ? what is the possible earliest sampling time after Tx-off order of micro's related pin.
Does it have chance of early sampling for discrimination experiments.?


and question to 1843 ,
what about big coil performance , do you have big coils like 8" or 18" diameter.

can you compare it with delta pulse.?

regards
Okantex

[barry]

Work in progress.

[Götz von Berlichingen]

Schematic fits on 8-1/2 X 11. Eagle's schematics are normally butt-ugly. I modify 99.9% of all the symbols I use, and I don't like junction dots
cluttering up a drawing. I think it looks better that way.

Time to go work some more on "Elderadoo" PCB (argh).

No Junction Dots ? This Schematic is very hard to read.
Drawing Schematics is not Art, its strictly technical.
There are Standards for this. Better use them.

[porkluvr]

No Junction Dots ? This Schematic is very hard to read.
Drawing Schematics is not Art, its strictly technical.
There are Standards for this. Better use them.

I suppose you have never heard of the standard where no connections are made where wires cross. Remember that no connections are made where wires cross and you don't have to worry "did he forget and leave a connection dot out". Dots are superflous when all connections are at "T" intersections rather than crosses.

Sorry this standard does not meet with your approval, but I did not invent it. It makes perfect sense to me.

[Fred]

Schematic fits on 8-1/2 X 11. Eagle's schematics are normally butt-ugly. I modify 99.9% of all the symbols I use, and I don't like junction dots
cluttering up a drawing. I think it looks better that way.

I won´t throw any standart in your face , but i hate the no-dots schematics.
at every intersection one must check if it is a T or not, of course no big deal but adds difficulty.
On the other hand dot don´t bother me .
Just my personal idea, nothing else

[porkluvr]

<snip>... no big deal but adds difficulty.<snip>

What's hard? Just follow a wire until it ends. Sure, it takes getting used to but it's not difficult. I know I'm in the minority here and I won't waste any more time swimming upstream. If this were someone's commercial project and they wanted dots I would say "No Way Dude" (just kidding). I would say "fine (jerk)". (I'm such a kidder.)

[Qiaozhi]

I suppose you have never heard of the standard where no connections are made where wires cross. Remember that no connections are made where wires cross and you don't have to worry "did he forget and leave a connection dot out". Dots are superflous when all connections are at "T" intersections rather than crosses.

Sorry this standard does not meet with your approval, but I did not invent it. It makes perfect sense to me.

In reality there can be a problem with schematics that don't have tie-dots.
I've seen the situation more than once where two right-angled tracks are touching at the corners. To the naked eye this looks like a crossover point.
It is always safest to use tie-dots, and never to use 4-way crossovers.

[J_Player]

In reality there can be a problem with schematics that don't have tie-dots.

Problem solved:

[UWLocator]

The PCB is for all, not me!
When you buy a kit (eg PD3200 or Goldpic), do they give you source code?

In my opinion, people need source code for PI's like Clone-PI or Miner to play with it, maybe...

Best regards,
1843

There is a difference. They design their own boards or pay someone to do it for them. They don't expect someone else to do that part of the work for them at no charge.

If your code is going to be closed and your ego is so big that you believe you are the only one who could improve it, design your own board. Surely you are the only one who could do it right anyway.

HH,
Rip

[porkluvr]

There is a difference. They design their own boards or pay someone to do it for them. They don't expect someone else to do that part of the work for them at no charge.

True enough, but drawing up a PCB for this project hardly equates to writing and debugging source code. Arguments that 1843 should share source code with the world based on recipricosity because somebody spins a measly PCB are unreasonable and specious. I think one or two programmed controllers and LCD might be fair exchange for a PCB source. But I never graduated college so I don't know how real thieves do business.

There are limits to reasonable generosity. I don't see any other programmers sharing source code for a functioning PI, much less for one that transmits a complex waveform.

1843 could design his own board and tell the moochers to screw-off.

[Götz von Berlichingen]

...
I don't see any other programmers sharing source code for a functioning PI, much less for one that transmits a complex waveform.
...

Mark Pauls shared his source Code for the Stuart II (Assembly, MPLAB Style).
I plan to rewrite it in Hitec-C and add a LCD.
This will be open Source, too, if i ever get it done.

[UWLocator]

But I never graduated college so I don't know how real thieves do business.

So, let me make sure I understand this. Since I graduated from college and do work for pay, I am a thief?

Rip

[ivconic]

Even if share code here, i am total ignorant in programming Atmels, so that code would mean nothing to me anyway. Hex file could mean something, only if i manage to somehow build a programmer and programm that uPc. Of course meaning .hex was accurate, not some nasty joke (which will not suprise me at all). Last but not least; i must have a some good interest in making that device, which i dont have at all. I made over 50 PI's so far and i had it enough for this lifetime. I made those just to sell and earn some money. Personally i dont like to work with PI's at all. My favorites are VLF IB's and nothing else. So...conclusion; i dont give a sheet about this project.... True. Yet at the very start i just wanted to contribute here and help man drawing him a pcb, cose he asked for it so many times. I do have some spare time and why not doing that? I like to play with Sprint Layout and exercise drawing various pcb's. That's how man improving skills.
So...aside previous argues...here is my draw. If it suits demands here - fine, if not - fine again. I probably should not take a part in this topic, and i will not continue in future, for sure. Yet, once i started something usually i must finish. That's me.
Bye!

Best regards to Carl!

[porkluvr]

Mark Pauls shared his source Code for the Stuart II (Assembly, MPLAB Style).
I plan to rewrite it in Hitec-C and add a LCD.
This will be open Source, too, if i ever get it done.

Touche. Posting a URL would have been very illuminating. I will do some searching.
But still, does spinning a PCB for the PI-111 equate to writing its source code? Sorry, but I don't think so.

So, let me make sure I understand this. Since I graduated from college and do work for pay, I am a thief?
Rip

Not necessarily a logical extension. But what you were after is not a fair trade.


Good job, Ivconic

[UWLocator]

Not necessarily a logical extension. But what you were after is not a fair trade.

You are making an assumption here. I never said I was after anything, and I don't like it when someone puts words in my mouth. I don't really find this project of interest at this point. There are many ideas for PI detectors based on PIC's and micros hanging around. Until they have been field tested, they are simply ideas that have not been proven yet.

1843 named some commercial projects and pointed out the they do not release source code. I simply pointed out that they also did not ask the community to do some of the work for them for free. I did not suggest that he should give the code in exchange for the board design. That is a decision that is his alone to make, as it would be for anyone that produces creative works.

Before you call someone a thief, maybe you should ask some questions and make sure you are clear about what they said.

Rip