Hi,
I have this design for a controller but i dont know the program for it?
Where can I find the code for it? I tried google coding but cannot find it. I normally write Pascal(Delphi) but this needs to be in Keil C for a 8051.
I need to get it working quickly. Who will help?
Seems like my post wasn't taken seriously.
Just you wait. In a few months time I should be in a position where I can demonstrate my product. Then you'll be posting different responses!
You wrote:
I have this design for a controller but i don't know the program for it? Where can I find the code for it? Who will help? [and then something about googling pascal, keil, 8051]
Answer to Question 1: not a question---statement Answer to Question 2: "it" is not very descriptive Answer to Question 3: 'Who' is either a consultant hence my link to: http://www.keil.com/condb/search.asp or you need to do a MUCH better job with the description of "it" before you could get anybody to attempt to help (that is either directly help or direct you to some helpful sites).
In a few months time I should be in a position where I can demonstrate my product.
I really do hope that is true. It is very difficult to achieve such things, and since most of the regular forum contributors know this, I'm sure they are also hoping the same thing.
But since you had such a vague original post, Andy could tell (like the rest of us) that it would take you a while to come up to speed on Keil C and the 8051 if you normally write in Pascal(Delphi) because the embedded world is very different than the "PC" platform. Thus Andy's first post.
--Cpt. Vince Foster 2nd Cannon Place Fort Marcy Park, VA
"It is very difficult to achieve such things..."
Perpetual motion - Please tell me more, have you experience of such projects (on 8051 or anything else)?
A "Perpetual Motion" controller could mean that you are maintaining some 'motion' ... perpetually. Such controllers do occur in the real world.
If you were making a "Perpetual Motion Machine" and meant:
"a machine that can continue to do work indefinitely without drawing energy from some external source; impossible under the law of conservation of energy".
Then either the joke is on me for failing to understand your intent, or you failed to convey your joke properly.
I think our captain likes to be able to precision-control very high-level retardations, where large amounts of energy are almost instantly changed from velocity to heat, possibly augmented by chemical energy.
Few people have had the great fortune of working with perpetual motion. Most of us bunglers tends to come up a bit short on the goal.
Per,
I like that description. Fits perfectly. And chemical energy (typically referred to as "CE") is usually highly focused.
The perpetual-ness of the machines I have built are relative to the duration of its operational life... uh, and any other life-form in its proximity.
The 'almost instant' part is in micro-seconds. Thus, fast controllers can 'compute stuff' and 'control things' while that 'instant' is occurring and altering the net 'end' effects.
"Thus, fast controllers can 'compute stuff' and 'control things' while that 'instant' is occurring and altering the net 'end' effects."
New facts to learn, every day. I thougth the greatest challenge was to control t, P and D. But then again, excavating takes time.
The general concept makes me think about the cooperative Excalibur project.
this begs a question: can you control a motion if it is perpetual?
Erik
but the question remain: what the frack is the OP talking about?! by the way, Per and Vince - do you guys speak Russian ("Maskirovka" is Russian for deception, if I remember correctly!)
Sorry, but no, alas. Too much literature I would have been able to read in original.
But both Maskirovka and Iron Felix should be part of the general education most people have received. Knowing our history helps us predict the future. The cold war is not long past, and this economic crisis will not help the world stability. With unemployment comes unrest.
New facts to learn, every day. I thought the greatest challenge was to control t, P and D. But then again, excavating takes time.
Ever notice how, in the embedded world, you have to keep track of huge quantities of 'things' in order to make the end product fit the customer's needs? And if you are doing both the electronics & the embedded code, it is a lot more than just a 'huge quantity' of things.
Then, you get a customer who expects perfection, and anything less will jeopardize zillions of dollars. They demand 'huge quantities' times 10, or times 100 or times 1000 or a large multiple of whatever the 'standard' embedded widget's Worry Number is.
You don't want to be "that guy" who screwed it up. So making sure your tools are certified to good standards ("Keil" of course --- "You should never post to any internet forum before you have confirmed that you are "on-topic"" ), your practices are solid, your everything is done "the best it can be done" (always at the cost of doing it, so 'best' being scaled by a Cost Coefficient).
Yes, from the top Project Managers down to the [highly skilled] solderer, every single person on that cooperative Excalibur project--aka XM982--did NOT want to be "That Guy."
Then you go to McDonald's, and order: 1) a Big Mac, 2) small fries, and 3) a small Coke. And you get 1) a fish-like sandwich--with extra cheese, 2) an Apple Pie, and 3) a Coke... no napkins, no straw, and no condiments.
Then, these McD employees tire of it and become Keil forum contributors in their pursuit to program one of my house-hold items: just to rub in the fact that they also messed up my cable-box as I open my McD bag to find that they got 2 of 3 items wrong.
Ever notice that?
I've got the dollars, they want the change, and government is efficiently capable of converting dollars into mere change.
Those are the same people (aka 'contributors') who wanted 'change' and are going to get just that. It is simply because, they don't study ANYTHING other than what the 'teacher' told them to study: they get their "useful" information from MTV, et al. (...or blindly using code from the internet so they can 'pass').
Knowing our [and I mean human beings in general] history, it vital to prevent this government (a major world player in world economics, so you guys over the pond need it just as much as the US idiot does) from worsening... only to cause unrest in the petite bourgeoisie and the current proletariat (ref Russian history) vis-a'-vis McDonald's employee *** Code Monkey.
The world in-stability will breed the dogs of war, and thus will just breed a war of corpses ( www.getty.edu/.../war_corpses_zm.html -- Rated G... artwork by John Heartfield: who should be part of the general education most people [should] have received ).
So learn your trade. Learn it well. And learn your history.
The answer to the question: can you control a motion if it is perpetual? is this:
History is perpetually in motion. It is controllable. But it takes skills, and stunningly, a knowledge of it.
'Maskirovka' is everywhere ( www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/.../smith.html ) and it is up to us to 1) recognize it, 2) control it the best we can, and 3) prevent it from going unstable.
"Change" is a bunch of 'Maskirovka' that I will pay for.
P.S. FPGAs are better than processors at 'computing stuff' and 'controlling things' in the various terminal maneuvers.
"You don't want to be "that guy" who screwed it up."
When the first swedish JAS 39 Griffin decided to dig earth after problems with the software in the fly-by-wire controlling a basically unstable airframe, I did spend quite a lot of time thinking about the people who was activelly working with the software. Luckilly, no one got hurt but accidents costs huge amounts of money and even if no fingers are pointed, I would assume a number of people did spend a couple of nights wondering if they where responsible, and what the result would be of the review.
" href= "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdePhzIwOmw">www.youtube.com/watch
BUT at least the ejector seat worked!
The interesting thing is that the plane crashed among the spectators of a large festival. There might have been 20 000 people really close by the location where the plane crashed. But there was this tiny little area (Stockholm has a lot of water, which affects peoples abilities to select where to stand) where no spectator was standing, so I think the worst injury was someone getting light burns since a military jet engine even without afterburner requires huge safety zones.
The fascinating thing is that SAAB managed to get both prototype crashes on TV. The first crash, they had invited a national news team after having a large number of uneventful tests. This crash was shown in the intro for all BBC news casts (together with the Challenger disaster) for at least six months.
The big problem then was the journalists. It did not help to show them statistics of prototype crashes with earlier generations of Swedish planes, or statistics about crashing american, russian, french, israeli planes or displaying budgets taking into plane losses into account. All the journalists could see was two-out-of-two failures and that was enough for professors to publically explain that it was technically impossible for the plane to fly because of the instability of the airframe (a specially designed feature since it also translates into very quick reactions - you don't have to fight to make the plane turn).
The problem is that all projects - civilian or military - gets more and more in an economical sqeeze. If something goes wrong, you don't need to be the guy who did wrong. Somehow, the reporters likes to sell a story. And that story require a company or a person to have done something wrong. And a company (or its owners) do not like to be blamed for having done something wrong, in which case they have to distribute the blame to an individual or a group. And a group don't like to be collectively blamed so in the end, the shareholders or the journalists will come hunting individuals.
In an earlier life, I did work with care alarm systems for elderly, where someone who have fallen or had an heart attack should be able to press a button to get help. Several times every year, the newspapers had articles about the alarms failing or being disconnected, resulting in someone dying without having received help. Everytime, there was huge amounts of speculation about the cause and if it should turn out to be "our" products. Maybe I was lucky, or maybe our products was better than the competitors, but in the end, it was always a competitor product, or maybe the people who installed the equipment decided to save money by turning off daily test alarms in which case an unplugged phone cable didn't get caught by the alarm receiver software.
I'm currently workign with solutions for infrastructure. Product failures means pitch black road crossings, water tower leaks not being reported, public transportation signs not showing the time of the next train/bus, people getting stuck in elevators not getting any response when pressing the alarm button, delayed police responses to robbed money transports, ...
Somehow, it is hard to work in the embedded world without being involved in critical systems where people may come to harm or get very irritated in case of problems. A software joke says that all programs contains at least one code line too much and at least one bug. So in the end, you will be able to reduce your program to a single line, and that line will be buggy.
One thing I have been wondering a bit about, is the huge number of people who post to this forum about "how do I implement xxx", but how few there are who posts: "how can I make sure that my code actually works?"
Maybe a very large number of posters are students or hobbyists. But a lot of posters do give me the impression of being professionals (as in payed), working on a commercial product. Do they already have a very good knowledge of QA (can anyone ever know too much?) or do they ask QA-related questions somewhere else? Or do they just do what they think is "enough", and leave the rest to the customers?
Per, Thanks for a long and catchy post. I have a few comments: The JAS 39 was not the first unstable airframe - the F-16 was the first operational fighter jet to have that property. Do you remember the F-20 peoject? see here: en.wikipedia.org/.../F-20_Tigershark
It also fell victim to multiple crashes and economic pressures that let to the cancellation of the entire program, 1.2 billion US dollars to late... By the way, I did not see an ejection in the first video or did it escape my eye?