@Gordon, Oh, what sad times are these if we can't collectively cut you some slack for momentarily getting your many boards mixed up. Thanks for your valuable input here on this delicate but important subject.
@davejames: Scratch that previous comment, according to Ken (he stated this in the SX EOL thread) they will continue making the BS2 for at least 15 more years.
It just hasn't taken off like the BS2. Then again this market segment is competitive with all the BS2 alternatives out there, so people have choices today unlike say a decade ago.
Note: The Spin Stamp module is not intended to be a direct drop-in replacement for any BASIC Stamp module and there are some important points to consider before purchasing the Spin Stamp:
A Prop Clip is REQUIRED to program the Spin Stamp. It is plugged into the four-hole connector on the bottom edge of the Spin Stamp with the badge facing up.
The Spin Stamp can be programmed in Propeller Assembly or Spin, a high-level language (The Spin Stamp cannot be programmed in PBASIC)
The Spin Stamp module’s I/O voltage is 3.3V compared with the BASIC Stamp module’s 5V I/O. Applying 5V directly to a Spin Stamp I/O pin will damage the Spin Stamp. Existing projects may require adjustments in software and circuitry to prevent damage to the Spin Stamp. Any input pins that are subject to 5V must have, at least, a 1 kΩ or larger resistor that is series-connected
It will only be a matter of 5 years before they drop the BS2 completely.
Huh? Why would a business do that? We just built 6,000 BS2-IC modules today. This product is still steady and increasing in volume as a result of educational use. It's a very important product for Parallax, our customers, and will be around until there is no demand.
I'm aware of the voltage differential and all the other details. It's the closet that anyone will see of a BS3 from Parallax IMO.
But I doubt you're ever gonna a get a direct replacement for the BS2 from Parallax that doesn't use external components to interface with 5V I/O or boards that use TTL . There aren't any newer uc's out there that don't use external components to interface to TTL.
Also in a post in the SX EOL thread Parallax has stated that they will only use micros developed by them from now on. That means the P1 and P2(when it comes out) for future stamps.
@davejames: Scratch that previous comment, according to Ken (he stated this in the SX EOL thread) they will continue making the BS2 for at least 15 more years.
BS2-IC uses the PIC16C57 - one of Microchip's leading 8-bitters. I don't imagine Microchip would EOL this part.
The BS2SX-IC uses the SX, and we have stored a product life cycle's worth of inventory of that processor - at least 15 years worth. We're about two years into that statement I made, and I should let you know that we still have plenty of processors to meet the initial supply projections.
Microcontrolled, come on over for an internship! We need to match your programming and engineering skills with an equal amount of some business acumen. All of our engineers have to acquire some of this to be effective.
Also in a post in the SX EOL thread Parallax has stated that they will only use micros developed by them from now on. That means the P1 and P2(when it comes out) for future stamps.
There's no reason that they couldn't design a single core chip based on Propeller technology, although not necessarily a direct implementation of a Propeller cog - ie, the built-in "features" of a cog, but with a more traditional architecture.
Whether it would be cost effective, I don't know. But it would definitely be interesting.
A year and half ago - when I first started routinely coming to this hallowed place , I was *blown away* by the stacks and stacks and stacks of BS2 panels - each panel containing 50 modules.
Yes, today I was *blown away* again...
I sense the coming of a few pics early tomorrow to this thread :-)
I took the time to read through the project book that comes with this kit...
The concept of creating fun projects which can be duplicated easily is a great way to introduce newcomers to electronics/microcontrollers. (A bunch of us started with those Radio Shack 101 kits -- Same concept.)
However, the project guides themselves are a little hard to follow. Larger diagrams and hookup-to-hookup directions would have helped. I DO like the idea of a paper guide which fits over the breadboard.
I have to admit that several of the commercial projects I did for Technicolor a few years back used a BS2. I even used it for a fairly mission critical application, involving some of Hollywood's biggest stars. Of course, none appreciated the little microcontroller at the heart of the thing that helped them turn out such wonderful performances. (Well, maybe Charlie Sheen did.)
Frankly, Ken, I don't think you could kill that little chip even if you wanted to. It's taken on a life of its own, and now transcends us all.
I'm aware of the voltage differential and all the other details. It's the closet that anyone will see of a BS3 from Parallax IMO.
Rod - the issue (IMHO) is that the Propeller ain't got no analog capability. I've observed it from afar, and the parallel nature of the internals is impressive...but it doesn't fit any need I currently have.
An analog update to the venerable BS2 would be wonderful...and it'd kick some serious Ard/Atom/whatever a**.
What do you mean that the Propeller doesn't have analog capability? It can do multiple ADCs using the cog counters and can generate fairly high quality audio, all with only a couple of passive components. EFX-TEK's WAV player shows one example of high quality stereo audio output using the cog counters and a simple RC filter.
Rod - the issue (IMHO) is that the Propeller ain't got no analog capability.
Please take a look at http://www.parallaxsemiconductor.com/an008. I think you might have preference for a hardware ADC, built-in, but I'm not sure. If you want to try this one the QuickStart has a few pads for the R and Cs.
Man, am I glad I poked... no, KICKED this hornets' nest.
Can you feel the passion here? We all love the BS2, we all love the Prop, it's just that there's a huge gap (and learning curve and 20 years of technology) between the two. I hate to see Johnny-come-lately's jumping in to fill that gap and steal the low-hanging fruit in that valley.
What do you mean that the Propeller doesn't have analog capability? It can do multiple ADCs using the cog counters...
Well...look.at.that.
Gentelmen - I sit corrected. I would have never known from the surface level that A/D, D/A capability could be constructed using the Propeller. My appologies.
Yes, I have a preference for built in converters and not having to concern myself with writing code to do the conversion.
I think there's a "learning moment" here, and I'll relate it via a work-oriented story.
I work for an automated test company. We manufacture equipment that IC makers (National, Intel, ST, etc.) would use to verify that their parts meet spec. One of the test systems has had a long, and profitable life meeting the needs of hundreds of customers with an installed base of over 3,000 systems. From inception, the test system could be programmed to perform multi-site testing (more than one part at a time), but it was messy in terms of code. So for over 10 years, the industry thought "it can't do multi-site". There were efforts made within the company to create a packaged solution to make it easier for the customer to perform multi-site testing. We even made the package relatively cheap and included free training on how to install and use the software. But 4 years later, few of the packages sold and the customer base still had the impression the test system could only do single-site testing.
No amount of internal company buzz, or application notes persuaded the customer into thinking better of the test system's multi-ste abilities. There was nothing on the surface level of documentation that anyone would see in a cursory glance hinting at things multi-site.
It took a completely new software revision, fully marketed, and fully discussed to wake up the customer base in that this little test system could test more than one device at a time.
All that to say this...
When I looked at the Propeller information provided on the company website (store, downloads, description), I never saw any hint of analog capabilites. The internal diagram with its depiction of the cogs showed no A/D, D/A blocks. The store's general description of pins, supplys, clocks never mentioned analog capability. A curosry (and I mean cursory) glance through the Spin language documentation did not reveal anything analog (save for possibly video generation).
So, in the end, for the last couple years I've believed that the Propeller has had no analog capability; no matter of what other people were doing. I just figured they were using out-board converters.
Today I discover that it does....via an application note, and counters, and code...but, it exists.
OK Dave, what's the learning moment here?
1 - I should have probably asked and not just believed what wasn't apprarent (don't see it, must not exist).
2 - This recently found information should have been up front where it would have been noticed at the get go.
2 - This recently found information should have been up front where it would have been noticed at the get go.
You bet. We have much work to do in this regard - presenting a product correctly is part marketing study and part art, and we don't always have the correct combination. If I can get off this quadcopter kick and get back to work we can review our marketing approach.
@dj: I just saw this http://www.gadgetgangster.com/tutorials/382 based on an early comment #4 by OBC here. It's nice to have access to all this info and collective brainpower in the forums. And certainly a lot of work to try to keep up, too! I haven't made the jump to the Propeller yet. Just dabbling, myself. So much potential, so little time.
I'm constantly humbled by the technical knowledge and achievements of Forumistas far smarter than I. Keeps me honest and inspired, that's a good thing!
You bet. We have much work to do in this regard - presenting a product correctly is part marketing study and part art, and we don't always have the correct combination. If I can get off this quadcopter kick and get back to work we can review our marketing approach.
Ken Gracey
Please know that my "mini-rant", if you will, was meant to be constructive.
for the last couple years I've believed that the Propeller has had no analog capability. No matter of what other people were doing; I just figured they were using out-board converters.
Today I discover that it does....via an application note, and counters, and code...but, it exists.
It comes down to design philosophy, whether to perform hardware functions in software, or build hardware-specific functions as part of the core. There's rationale for both, but in the end, market drivers determine what each user group wants.
Over the last several years the "de facto" standard among microcontrollers is to perform ADC in hardware. It's how most Atmel and PIC chips work, and it's now what the market expects. Engineers specifically look for the ADC specs in the data sheet, along with things like pin count and maximum processor speed. You can build ADC functions outboard to any controller, but remember that it takes n-number of extra components that the hardware-based solutions don't need.
For industrial and commercial applications, engineers might not even want to use a build-in ADC. They tend to be noisy, limited, and slow (the ADCs, and maybe the engineers, but that's another thread). So if they need something else they're going to add external circuitry to get what they want anyway. No problems there.
But groups like students and home DIY builders don't want to bother with three or four extra external components -- not to mention an extra object or code or whatever to deal with it in software. They want and expect to plug things straight in. The BS1 and BS2 has long shown how to achieve ADC using an RC network, and that was fine before the days of products like the Arduino. Nothing lives in a vacuum, though, and in recent years other MCU solutions have redefined the desirability of hardware-based ADC, especially for first-time users.
From a teaching perspective (the books and articles I do), I have to spend a couple extra paragraphs, and a more elaborate illustration, to show outboard ADC circuitry. I don't like doing it. The extra discussion takes away from being able to talk about other things, or just makes the whole subject appear more complicated to first time learners.
I have no problem with the Propeller not having an internal hardware ADC similar to AVR or PIC. And that's been how the BS2 has been from the beginning. But we're really talking apples to oranges here. And in returning to the original topic, for a basic "clever" kit of parts for teaching microcontrollers with the Arduino, it's a pertinent distinction.
humbled by the technical knowledge and achievements of Forumistas
Completely agree. However, I'll add the following twist to a speech made by JFK about "talent" at a state dinner with Nobel Prize winners, Statesmen, etc.,
"Never before has so much talent been assembled in one place (these Forums), except when Chip Gracey dines alone".
...yet combined with humble spirit and good character. Certainly a rare mix.
Regarding message #51: I know this has been discussed briefly before, but the whole notion of constructing "peripheral blocks" in software is not featured prominently enough in descriptions of the Propeller. Even though this same design philosophy is used with the PICs and the AVRs, etc., it's used mostly with the smaller simpler devices as a fall-back when the peripheral blocks are not available. With the Propeller, it's fundamental to the device. When someone looks at the Propeller's datasheet, there are indeed no UARTs, no ADCs, no DACs, no PWM generators, etc. There's a video generator and two counters. Perhaps there should be another paragraph in the introduction in the datasheet that says something like:
One of the uses of the cogs is the implemention of peripherals like UARTs, sigma-delta ADCs, motor controllers, video drivers, keyboard & mouse drivers. The Propeller Tool (software development suite) includes a variety of peripherals as Spin/Assembly source objects and the Application Note library (link here) discusses several of these in detail.
Perhaps there should be another paragraph in the introduction in the datasheet that says something like:...
<snipped>
I'd do this, but with pictures. People have to get the idea in five seconds or less. I'd also redo OBEX so that the top tier of these objects is in a simple-to-find list. People have to know what to look for in order to find what they want. It takes a while to understand that with the Propeller most everything is done in software.
Not saying the Arduino guys have everything right, but look how this page is done:
They list the libraries that come with the IDE, and then a handful of the most commonly used contributed libraries. The number and scope of libraries is far larger than this, but the single page of a Top Ten de-complicates the concept.
Or to put this in sports terms, when the other team is scoring points against you, a good way to win is to analyze how they're playing the game.
Comments
Ni !
DUDE! Site your source!!! :surprise:
Thanks man. Sometimes it takes a more respectable Forum member to get my message across.
It just hasn't taken off like the BS2. Then again this market segment is competitive with all the BS2 alternatives out there, so people have choices today unlike say a decade ago.
Note: The Spin Stamp module is not intended to be a direct drop-in replacement for any BASIC Stamp module and there are some important points to consider before purchasing the Spin Stamp:
A Prop Clip is REQUIRED to program the Spin Stamp. It is plugged into the four-hole connector on the bottom edge of the Spin Stamp with the badge facing up.
The Spin Stamp can be programmed in Propeller Assembly or Spin, a high-level language (The Spin Stamp cannot be programmed in PBASIC)
The Spin Stamp module’s I/O voltage is 3.3V compared with the BASIC Stamp module’s 5V I/O. Applying 5V directly to a Spin Stamp I/O pin will damage the Spin Stamp. Existing projects may require adjustments in software and circuitry to prevent damage to the Spin Stamp. Any input pins that are subject to 5V must have, at least, a 1 kΩ or larger resistor that is series-connected
Huh? Why would a business do that? We just built 6,000 BS2-IC modules today. This product is still steady and increasing in volume as a result of educational use. It's a very important product for Parallax, our customers, and will be around until there is no demand.
Ken Gracey
But I doubt you're ever gonna a get a direct replacement for the BS2 from Parallax that doesn't use external components to interface with 5V I/O or boards that use TTL . There aren't any newer uc's out there that don't use external components to interface to TTL.
Also in a post in the SX EOL thread Parallax has stated that they will only use micros developed by them from now on. That means the P1 and P2(when it comes out) for future stamps.
BS2-IC uses the PIC16C57 - one of Microchip's leading 8-bitters. I don't imagine Microchip would EOL this part.
The BS2SX-IC uses the SX, and we have stored a product life cycle's worth of inventory of that processor - at least 15 years worth. We're about two years into that statement I made, and I should let you know that we still have plenty of processors to meet the initial supply projections.
Microcontrolled, come on over for an internship! We need to match your programming and engineering skills with an equal amount of some business acumen. All of our engineers have to acquire some of this to be effective.
Ken Gracey
There's no reason that they couldn't design a single core chip based on Propeller technology, although not necessarily a direct implementation of a Propeller cog - ie, the built-in "features" of a cog, but with a more traditional architecture.
Whether it would be cost effective, I don't know. But it would definitely be interesting.
A year and half ago - when I first started routinely coming to this hallowed place
Yes, today I was *blown away* again...
I sense the coming of a few pics early tomorrow to this thread :-)
-Matt
I took the time to read through the project book that comes with this kit...
The concept of creating fun projects which can be duplicated easily is a great way to introduce newcomers to electronics/microcontrollers. (A bunch of us started with those Radio Shack 101 kits -- Same concept.)
However, the project guides themselves are a little hard to follow. Larger diagrams and hookup-to-hookup directions would have helped. I DO like the idea of a paper guide which fits over the breadboard.
OBC
I have to admit that several of the commercial projects I did for Technicolor a few years back used a BS2. I even used it for a fairly mission critical application, involving some of Hollywood's biggest stars. Of course, none appreciated the little microcontroller at the heart of the thing that helped them turn out such wonderful performances. (Well, maybe Charlie Sheen did.)
Frankly, Ken, I don't think you could kill that little chip even if you wanted to. It's taken on a life of its own, and now transcends us all.
-- Gordon
Rod - the issue (IMHO) is that the Propeller ain't got no analog capability. I've observed it from afar, and the parallel nature of the internals is impressive...but it doesn't fit any need I currently have.
An analog update to the venerable BS2 would be wonderful...and it'd kick some serious Ard/Atom/whatever a**.
Please take a look at http://www.parallaxsemiconductor.com/an008. I think you might have preference for a hardware ADC, built-in, but I'm not sure. If you want to try this one the QuickStart has a few pads for the R and Cs.
Ken Gracey
Here's a quick peek into the production of BS2's!
(Per MattG's request)
-MaddieTheIntern
Can you feel the passion here? We all love the BS2, we all love the Prop, it's just that there's a huge gap (and learning curve and 20 years of technology) between the two. I hate to see Johnny-come-lately's jumping in to fill that gap and steal the low-hanging fruit in that valley.
Well...look.at.that.
Gentelmen - I sit corrected. I would have never known from the surface level that A/D, D/A capability could be constructed using the Propeller. My appologies.
Yes, I have a preference for built in converters and not having to concern myself with writing code to do the conversion.
RIP, BS3.
I work for an automated test company. We manufacture equipment that IC makers (National, Intel, ST, etc.) would use to verify that their parts meet spec. One of the test systems has had a long, and profitable life meeting the needs of hundreds of customers with an installed base of over 3,000 systems. From inception, the test system could be programmed to perform multi-site testing (more than one part at a time), but it was messy in terms of code. So for over 10 years, the industry thought "it can't do multi-site". There were efforts made within the company to create a packaged solution to make it easier for the customer to perform multi-site testing. We even made the package relatively cheap and included free training on how to install and use the software. But 4 years later, few of the packages sold and the customer base still had the impression the test system could only do single-site testing.
No amount of internal company buzz, or application notes persuaded the customer into thinking better of the test system's multi-ste abilities. There was nothing on the surface level of documentation that anyone would see in a cursory glance hinting at things multi-site.
It took a completely new software revision, fully marketed, and fully discussed to wake up the customer base in that this little test system could test more than one device at a time.
All that to say this...
When I looked at the Propeller information provided on the company website (store, downloads, description), I never saw any hint of analog capabilites. The internal diagram with its depiction of the cogs showed no A/D, D/A blocks. The store's general description of pins, supplys, clocks never mentioned analog capability. A curosry (and I mean cursory) glance through the Spin language documentation did not reveal anything analog (save for possibly video generation).
So, in the end, for the last couple years I've believed that the Propeller has had no analog capability; no matter of what other people were doing. I just figured they were using out-board converters.
Today I discover that it does....via an application note, and counters, and code...but, it exists.
OK Dave, what's the learning moment here?
1 - I should have probably asked and not just believed what wasn't apprarent (don't see it, must not exist).
2 - This recently found information should have been up front where it would have been noticed at the get go.
You bet. We have much work to do in this regard - presenting a product correctly is part marketing study and part art, and we don't always have the correct combination. If I can get off this quadcopter kick and get back to work we can review our marketing approach.
Ken Gracey
I'm constantly humbled by the technical knowledge and achievements of Forumistas far smarter than I. Keeps me honest and inspired, that's a good thing!
Please know that my "mini-rant", if you will, was meant to be constructive.
It comes down to design philosophy, whether to perform hardware functions in software, or build hardware-specific functions as part of the core. There's rationale for both, but in the end, market drivers determine what each user group wants.
Over the last several years the "de facto" standard among microcontrollers is to perform ADC in hardware. It's how most Atmel and PIC chips work, and it's now what the market expects. Engineers specifically look for the ADC specs in the data sheet, along with things like pin count and maximum processor speed. You can build ADC functions outboard to any controller, but remember that it takes n-number of extra components that the hardware-based solutions don't need.
For industrial and commercial applications, engineers might not even want to use a build-in ADC. They tend to be noisy, limited, and slow (the ADCs, and maybe the engineers, but that's another thread). So if they need something else they're going to add external circuitry to get what they want anyway. No problems there.
But groups like students and home DIY builders don't want to bother with three or four extra external components -- not to mention an extra object or code or whatever to deal with it in software. They want and expect to plug things straight in. The BS1 and BS2 has long shown how to achieve ADC using an RC network, and that was fine before the days of products like the Arduino. Nothing lives in a vacuum, though, and in recent years other MCU solutions have redefined the desirability of hardware-based ADC, especially for first-time users.
From a teaching perspective (the books and articles I do), I have to spend a couple extra paragraphs, and a more elaborate illustration, to show outboard ADC circuitry. I don't like doing it. The extra discussion takes away from being able to talk about other things, or just makes the whole subject appear more complicated to first time learners.
I have no problem with the Propeller not having an internal hardware ADC similar to AVR or PIC. And that's been how the BS2 has been from the beginning. But we're really talking apples to oranges here. And in returning to the original topic, for a basic "clever" kit of parts for teaching microcontrollers with the Arduino, it's a pertinent distinction.
-- Gordon
...could not agree with you more. Many times I have left the Forums vastly impressed with what people have done.
Completely agree. However, I'll add the following twist to a speech made by JFK about "talent" at a state dinner with Nobel Prize winners, Statesmen, etc.,
"Never before has so much talent been assembled in one place (these Forums), except when Chip Gracey dines alone".
...yet combined with humble spirit and good character. Certainly a rare mix.
-Matt
One of the uses of the cogs is the implemention of peripherals like UARTs, sigma-delta ADCs, motor controllers, video drivers, keyboard & mouse drivers. The Propeller Tool (software development suite) includes a variety of peripherals as Spin/Assembly source objects and the Application Note library (link here) discusses several of these in detail.
That was my whole point.
I'd do this, but with pictures. People have to get the idea in five seconds or less. I'd also redo OBEX so that the top tier of these objects is in a simple-to-find list. People have to know what to look for in order to find what they want. It takes a while to understand that with the Propeller most everything is done in software.
Not saying the Arduino guys have everything right, but look how this page is done:
http://arduino.cc/en/Reference/Libraries
They list the libraries that come with the IDE, and then a handful of the most commonly used contributed libraries. The number and scope of libraries is far larger than this, but the single page of a Top Ten de-complicates the concept.
Or to put this in sports terms, when the other team is scoring points against you, a good way to win is to analyze how they're playing the game.
-- Gordon