Question on stepper control
Archiver
Posts: 46,084
Hello fellow Stampers,
My question is, can you control several stepper motors at the same
time with a Basic Stamp II? Would I need someting like Al William's
PAK VIII or something?
Thanks in advance!!!
Frank G.
My question is, can you control several stepper motors at the same
time with a Basic Stamp II? Would I need someting like Al William's
PAK VIII or something?
Thanks in advance!!!
Frank G.
Comments
loop that runs the servos. Servos like to see pulses every so often,
otherwise they don't move properly. Chances are you would not have a problem
unless you were monitoring alot of sensors and doing alot of math. Might
look at the BOEBOT code to see how they work this out.
I pondered this on one robot and offloaded the servo control to a BS1 -- all
it does is receive a direction command from a BS2 and make the servos go
that way.
Original Message
> My question is, can you control several stepper motors at the same
> time with a Basic Stamp II? Would I need someting like Al William's
> PAK VIII or something?
pins. Having the stamp drive the steppers is a waste of resources.
There are chips that simply require clock pulses and direction
control. These chips work closely with driver chips, usually
containing a few H-bridges. Some chips contain both the logic and
drivers.
You are not going to interface a stamp directly to a stepper. Doing
so would kill it.
So you're still going to need a bunch of pieces parts in between the
stepper and the stamp. Might as well off-load the logic required to
turn off the motor coils to a chip designed to do just that...
If all you want to do is spin around some steppers you may not even
need a stamp. Especially if you're willing to use the motors in a
unipolar mode (5,6 or 8 wire motors can do this)
Generate some pulses using a 555 (or whatever) 555 output pulses =
4017 clock pulses. 4017 outputs as follows:
Q0 = coil 1
Q1 = coil 2
Q3 = coil 3
Q4 = coil 4
Again, the 4017 decade counter does not have the oomph necessary to
drive a stepper. The 4017 should turn on transistors which actually
switch off and on the stepper coils. Using the 555 would also allow
for speed control and reset.
If you could get away with this the job could be done for about two
bucks, not including the stepper.
Despite the rantings of some, the 555 and 4017 are both (very) easy
chips to use. There is a ton of data to be found out there. If this
interests you, and you would like more specific information, please
don't hesitate to ask.
Regards
Rich
--- In basicstamps@y..., fwankg@y... wrote:
> Hello fellow Stampers,
>
> My question is, can you control several stepper motors at the same
> time with a Basic Stamp II? Would I need someting like Al
William's
> PAK VIII or something?
>
> Thanks in advance!!!
>
> Frank G.
Original Message
> Controlling 2 bipolar steppers would commit at least 8 I/O stamp
> pins.
> > My question is, can you control several stepper motors at the same
> > time with a Basic Stamp II? Would I need someting like Al
> William's
> > PAK VIII or something?
> Controlling 2 bipolar steppers would commit at least 8 I/O stamp
> pins. Having the stamp drive the steppers is a waste of resources.
Rich,
I do realize that I have to have some electronics between the stamp
and the stepper. Now don't quote me. I am quite the novice when it
comes to electronics. With the correct electronics between the stamp
and the stepper. Couldn't I use one output pin to control the
stepper. One pulse, One step. The quicker I send the pulses, the
quicker the stepper moves from step to step. Wouldn't I have
complete control as to how many steps to rotate the motor?
>
> Generate some pulses using a 555 (or whatever) 555 output pulses =
> 4017 clock pulses. 4017 outputs as follows:
>
> Q0 = coil 1
> Q1 = coil 2
> Q3 = coil 3
> Q4 = coil 4
Couldn't I substitute the pulses generated by the 555 for the output
pin of my Stamp? That way I could use one pin for each motor.
With that in mind, I guess I would be able to run several steppers
with the right electronics of course.
Has anyone tried this before? Was there any major timing problems
with this kind of set up?
>
> Again, the 4017 decade counter does not have the oomph necessary to
> drive a stepper. The 4017 should turn on transistors which actually
> switch off and on the stepper coils
I would like to see some more information about the decade counter
and transistors. I have searched for some info, but with little
progress. Do any of you have any schematics laying around with this
555,4017,transistor set up for stepper control?
>
> Despite the rantings of some, the 555 and 4017 are both (very) easy
> chips to use. There is a ton of data to be found out there. If this
> interests you, and you would like more specific information, please
> don't hesitate to ask.
Thanks again for all the help......
>
> Regards
>
> Rich
>
>
> Frank G.
>Hello fellow Stampers,
>
>My question is, can you control several stepper motors at the same
>time with a Basic Stamp II? Would I need someting like Al William's
>PAK VIII or something?
>
>Thanks in advance!!!
>
>Frank G.
Hi Frank -
You may want to take a look at the ELABS web site: http://www.elabinc.com/
and take a look at their Stepper Motor Controller ICs. The EDE-1200 (Unipolar)
or the EDE-1204 (Bi-Polar). All of the information required can be found in
the data sheets and in the applications notes.
Alternatively, you may wish to ask for their CD. The CD contains all of their
products.
Regards,
Bruce Bates
One thing, if you want the maximum torque available the stepper
should be driven in its bipolar mode. In this mode all the coils are
energised. To do this you need an H -bridge for a driver, and you
need the logic to control the H bridge. An H bridge has to be very
carefully controlled. If not, BOOM. This requires a bunch of parts.
If you don't need the max torque the motor can provide then the
stepper can be operated in its unipolar mode. Here, the stepper coils
turn on and off, the polarity of the coils is not reversed, as in
bipolar operation.
Anyway, if unipolar operation is ok then your plan is a good, easy
one. Select a pin on the stamp to provide pulses, input these pulses
into a 4017 decade counter, or to a stepper controller IC (I don't
know the part numbers offhand, data is at home, I'm at work. If you
need the info I'll bring it in tomorrow, let me know).
I like the 4017 plan because it's DIRT cheap, and will get the job
done. All it takes is the 4017, 4 transistors, 4 resistors and
diodes. Cheap radio shack parts.
Come to think of it, there is a stepper controller that has all the
logic built in, as well as the drivers. This is a bipolar (nice)
controller, full/half step, direction control. 3 stamp pins,
clock,enable,direction (I think) I'll see if I can remember what chip
that was I saw. Maybe someone out here will see this and cough up the
part number of the chip I'm thinking of. If not, I'll get it for you.
I will email you with the part numbers and more info later today or
tomorrow AM
Regards
Rich
--- In basicstamps@y..., fwankg@y... wrote:
> --- In basicstamps@y..., iceninevt@y... wrote:
> > Controlling 2 bipolar steppers would commit at least 8 I/O stamp
> > pins. Having the stamp drive the steppers is a waste of resources.
>
> Rich,
>
> I do realize that I have to have some electronics between the stamp
> and the stepper. Now don't quote me. I am quite the novice when
it
> comes to electronics. With the correct electronics between the
stamp
> and the stepper. Couldn't I use one output pin to control the
> stepper. One pulse, One step. The quicker I send the pulses, the
> quicker the stepper moves from step to step. Wouldn't I have
> complete control as to how many steps to rotate the motor?
>
>
> >
> > Generate some pulses using a 555 (or whatever) 555 output pulses
=
> > 4017 clock pulses. 4017 outputs as follows:
> >
> > Q0 = coil 1
> > Q1 = coil 2
> > Q3 = coil 3
> > Q4 = coil 4
>
>
> Couldn't I substitute the pulses generated by the 555 for the
output
> pin of my Stamp? That way I could use one pin for each motor.
>
> With that in mind, I guess I would be able to run several steppers
> with the right electronics of course.
>
> Has anyone tried this before? Was there any major timing problems
> with this kind of set up?
>
> >
> > Again, the 4017 decade counter does not have the oomph necessary
to
> > drive a stepper. The 4017 should turn on transistors which
actually
> > switch off and on the stepper coils
>
> I would like to see some more information about the decade counter
> and transistors. I have searched for some info, but with little
> progress. Do any of you have any schematics laying around with
this
> 555,4017,transistor set up for stepper control?
>
> >
> > Despite the rantings of some, the 555 and 4017 are both (very)
easy
> > chips to use. There is a ton of data to be found out there. If
this
> > interests you, and you would like more specific information,
please
> > don't hesitate to ask.
>
> Thanks again for all the help......
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> > Frank G.
Thanks for all the help! I would like to see the information you
have on the 4017 plan. But for what I'm doing, I think I am going to
need full torque from the steppers. I would appreciate if you did e-
mail me the information. Thanks
Frank G.
--- In basicstamps@y..., iceninevt@y... wrote:
> Absolutely
>
> One thing, if you want the maximum torque available the stepper
> should be driven in its bipolar mode. In this mode all the coils
are
> energised. To do this you need an H -bridge for a driver, and you
> need the logic to control the H bridge. An H bridge has to be very
> carefully controlled. If not, BOOM. This requires a bunch of parts.
>
> If you don't need the max torque the motor can provide then the
> stepper can be operated in its unipolar mode. Here, the stepper
coils
> turn on and off, the polarity of the coils is not reversed, as in
> bipolar operation.
>
>
> Anyway, if unipolar operation is ok then your plan is a good, easy
> one. Select a pin on the stamp to provide pulses, input these
pulses
> into a 4017 decade counter, or to a stepper controller IC (I don't
> know the part numbers offhand, data is at home, I'm at work. If you
> need the info I'll bring it in tomorrow, let me know).
>
> I like the 4017 plan because it's DIRT cheap, and will get the job
> done. All it takes is the 4017, 4 transistors, 4 resistors and
> diodes. Cheap radio shack parts.
>
> Come to think of it, there is a stepper controller that has all the
> logic built in, as well as the drivers. This is a bipolar (nice)
> controller, full/half step, direction control. 3 stamp pins,
> clock,enable,direction (I think) I'll see if I can remember what
chip
> that was I saw. Maybe someone out here will see this and cough up
the
> part number of the chip I'm thinking of. If not, I'll get it for
you.
>
> I will email you with the part numbers and more info later today or
> tomorrow AM
>
> Regards
>
> Rich
>
> --- In basicstamps@y..., fwankg@y... wrote:
> > --- In basicstamps@y..., iceninevt@y... wrote:
> > > Controlling 2 bipolar steppers would commit at least 8 I/O
stamp
> > > pins. Having the stamp drive the steppers is a waste of
resources.
> >
> > Rich,
> >
> > I do realize that I have to have some electronics between the
stamp
> > and the stepper. Now don't quote me. I am quite the novice when
> it
> > comes to electronics. With the correct electronics between the
> stamp
> > and the stepper. Couldn't I use one output pin to control the
> > stepper. One pulse, One step. The quicker I send the pulses,
the
> > quicker the stepper moves from step to step. Wouldn't I have
> > complete control as to how many steps to rotate the motor?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Generate some pulses using a 555 (or whatever) 555 output
pulses
> =
> > > 4017 clock pulses. 4017 outputs as follows:
> > >
> > > Q0 = coil 1
> > > Q1 = coil 2
> > > Q3 = coil 3
> > > Q4 = coil 4
> >
> >
> > Couldn't I substitute the pulses generated by the 555 for the
> output
> > pin of my Stamp? That way I could use one pin for each motor.
> >
> > With that in mind, I guess I would be able to run several
steppers
> > with the right electronics of course.
> >
> > Has anyone tried this before? Was there any major timing
problems
> > with this kind of set up?
> >
> > >
> > > Again, the 4017 decade counter does not have the oomph
necessary
> to
> > > drive a stepper. The 4017 should turn on transistors which
> actually
> > > switch off and on the stepper coils
> >
> > I would like to see some more information about the decade
counter
> > and transistors. I have searched for some info, but with little
> > progress. Do any of you have any schematics laying around with
> this
> > 555,4017,transistor set up for stepper control?
> >
> > >
> > > Despite the rantings of some, the 555 and 4017 are both (very)
> easy
> > > chips to use. There is a ton of data to be found out there. If
> this
> > > interests you, and you would like more specific information,
> please
> > > don't hesitate to ask.
> >
> > Thanks again for all the help......
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> > >
> > > Frank G.
There was a reply to your query recommending this website
http://www.elabinc.com/ as a source for bipolar stepper motor
drivers. Take a peek, they do provide data sheets. I'll bring in some
stuff and email you with some more info
Regards
Rich
--- In basicstamps@y..., fwankg@y... wrote:
> Rich,
>
> Thanks for all the help! I would like to see the information you
> have on the 4017 plan. But for what I'm doing, I think I am going
to
> need full torque from the steppers. I would appreciate if you did
e-
> mail me the information. Thanks
>
> Frank G.
>
>
>
> --- In basicstamps@y..., iceninevt@y... wrote:
> > Absolutely
> >
> > One thing, if you want the maximum torque available the stepper
> > should be driven in its bipolar mode. In this mode all the coils
> are
> > energised. To do this you need an H -bridge for a driver, and you
> > need the logic to control the H bridge. An H bridge has to be
very
> > carefully controlled. If not, BOOM. This requires a bunch of
parts.
> >
> > If you don't need the max torque the motor can provide then the
> > stepper can be operated in its unipolar mode. Here, the stepper
> coils
> > turn on and off, the polarity of the coils is not reversed, as in
> > bipolar operation.
> >
> >
> > Anyway, if unipolar operation is ok then your plan is a good,
easy
> > one. Select a pin on the stamp to provide pulses, input these
> pulses
> > into a 4017 decade counter, or to a stepper controller IC (I
don't
> > know the part numbers offhand, data is at home, I'm at work. If
you
> > need the info I'll bring it in tomorrow, let me know).
> >
> > I like the 4017 plan because it's DIRT cheap, and will get the
job
> > done. All it takes is the 4017, 4 transistors, 4 resistors and
> > diodes. Cheap radio shack parts.
> >
> > Come to think of it, there is a stepper controller that has all
the
> > logic built in, as well as the drivers. This is a bipolar (nice)
> > controller, full/half step, direction control. 3 stamp pins,
> > clock,enable,direction (I think) I'll see if I can remember what
> chip
> > that was I saw. Maybe someone out here will see this and cough up
> the
> > part number of the chip I'm thinking of. If not, I'll get it for
> you.
> >
> > I will email you with the part numbers and more info later today
or
> > tomorrow AM
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > --- In basicstamps@y..., fwankg@y... wrote:
> > > --- In basicstamps@y..., iceninevt@y... wrote:
> > > > Controlling 2 bipolar steppers would commit at least 8 I/O
> stamp
> > > > pins. Having the stamp drive the steppers is a waste of
> resources.
> > >
> > > Rich,
> > >
> > > I do realize that I have to have some electronics between the
> stamp
> > > and the stepper. Now don't quote me. I am quite the novice
when
> > it
> > > comes to electronics. With the correct electronics between the
> > stamp
> > > and the stepper. Couldn't I use one output pin to control the
> > > stepper. One pulse, One step. The quicker I send the pulses,
> the
> > > quicker the stepper moves from step to step. Wouldn't I have
> > > complete control as to how many steps to rotate the motor?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Generate some pulses using a 555 (or whatever) 555 output
> pulses
> > =
> > > > 4017 clock pulses. 4017 outputs as follows:
> > > >
> > > > Q0 = coil 1
> > > > Q1 = coil 2
> > > > Q3 = coil 3
> > > > Q4 = coil 4
> > >
> > >
> > > Couldn't I substitute the pulses generated by the 555 for the
> > output
> > > pin of my Stamp? That way I could use one pin for each motor.
> > >
> > > With that in mind, I guess I would be able to run several
> steppers
> > > with the right electronics of course.
> > >
> > > Has anyone tried this before? Was there any major timing
> problems
> > > with this kind of set up?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, the 4017 decade counter does not have the oomph
> necessary
> > to
> > > > drive a stepper. The 4017 should turn on transistors which
> > actually
> > > > switch off and on the stepper coils
> > >
> > > I would like to see some more information about the decade
> counter
> > > and transistors. I have searched for some info, but with
little
> > > progress. Do any of you have any schematics laying around with
> > this
> > > 555,4017,transistor set up for stepper control?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Despite the rantings of some, the 555 and 4017 are both
(very)
> > easy
> > > > chips to use. There is a ton of data to be found out there.
If
> > this
> > > > interests you, and you would like more specific information,
> > please
> > > > don't hesitate to ask.
> > >
> > > Thanks again for all the help......
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Frank G.