PIC Programmer

[Steve Gorkowski]

I think Pic is great way to start learning uC chips. If my program gets
larger than a Pic it goes to a PC104 board. As a general rule if the project
codes bigger than a Pic the chances of that home project getting done is
slim. I recommend you to use several Pics and do one for fuel control ( maybe
one for each cyl.) and one for spark control ( I recommend to just buy the
Pic ignition kit it works). I also recommend using a junker lawn mower engine
recommend electric start on it . Use it as a test unit for your project .
Getting that engine running the first time on your code is very rewarding . I
did my first coding for engines on a 8051 before Pic was out there and would
use the Pic over the 8051 .  Never had time to finish the code for the car
but with the information from this group should help you get it coded.  I
recommend coding in a higher level language I use the CCS C compiler.

Just my experiences and wish you the best of luck on all your projects.

Steve


Peter Gargano wrote:

> My 2 cents worth on the PIC...
>
> Simon Quested wrote:
>
> > A$25 for a starter kit...
> > Is this the sort of thing that is good for a complete beginner in PICs?
> > (like me)
>
> I think that it's very good value, BUT, you have to ask yourself why
> you're going to use a PIC. These devices are great for performing
> many small logic functions - and the Scenix devices (fast PIC clones)
> seem to be fast enough to even replace existing hardware devices
> (perhaps even a slow CPU).
>
> The biggest drawback is that the PIC has only small amounts of program
> memory. This is built into the architecture and means that larger
> projects are much harder to program because you have to worry about
> things like your code crossing a page boundary, etc.
>
> Traditional microprocessor architectures like the 68HC11, 68332, etc.
> can access lots of program memory and are not limited in the same way
> a PIC is. On the other hand, to do anything with one of these "bigger"
> chips, you have to write a lot of code just to get the CPU to power
> up its internal circuitry and talk to the outside world.
>
> You may have heard about the Basic Stamp (and like clones) that can
> be programmed in BASIC (or even C). These devices use a PIC chip,
> but they read an external program (usually stored in a serial EEPROM).
> For each high level instruction it interprets, the PIC has to
> read the EEPROM, decode what is required, then do it. This slows the
> PIC down by orders of magnitude compared to running from its "native"
> mode, and compared to an a "traditional" microprocessor. In general
> a Basic Stamp (or similar) is NOT suitable for an EFI project. On the
> other hand, a simple ignition controller is quite do-able (Jaycar also
> have a PIC ignition controller kit!).
>
> I have to be honest and say that if you want to get into programming
> micros then one of the best things to do is get something like an
> Apple II or C64, etc. People are throwing them out and you can get
> them for nothing (perhaps someone will pay you to take one away!).
> Get a book about programming, spend some time getting to know how
> to program your CPU, and then, if you're still motivated, AND you
> really have something you want to program, team up with one of the
> current EFI332 projects and you'll be in a position to understand
> what's happening.
>
> If you do get say an Apple, what you'll learn may not be about the
> same micro that's in a particular ECU (although the 6502 is not
> unlike the 6800 which is the basis for the 68HC11 which is used
> in many GM ECUs) but it will give you a basis for understanding
> how the microprocessor in the ECU works - that has to be good for
> something!
>
> regards,
> --
> Peter Gargano