Parallel64

[Ray]

Most people know one parallel port can drive 12 channels (the trick being the 4 control lines have to use a buffer chip like uln2803 or LS244 and can't go straight into SSRs as with the 8 data lines. And sometimes even the 8 data lines need driver/buffer chips).

But now that I know how to make the control lines work I want to tackle the parallel64 with one parallel port running 64 channels (so if you have 3 parallel ports you can run 192 channels)

My first thought was to go first with parallel24 that uses the PPi chip that runs 24 lines from one parallel port but that would only give a total of 72 channels with 3 parallel cards so I decided the parallel64 with the possibility of 192 channels was more dramatic (LOL)

Now my decision is about with the parallel64. Should I use a 3 to 8 decoder on the control lines (3 lines, 3 bits, counts out to 8 in binary). So with 8 data lines and 8 select lines I get 64 channels. This seems the simplest. So I'd have a 192 channel system with 3 ports.

However if instead of 3 to 8 decoders on 3 of the control lines if I use 2 of the 4 to 16 decoder chips on the 8 data lines they give me 32 channels and then with control lines I can pick 2 multiples of this to get the parallel64.

But which way would be best? Has anyone tried parallel64? Any suggests about which is the easiest way to do the parallel64 on one parallel port. (Already figured out the way to modify the parallel12 driver to do parallel64 so don't need help on that) Just need some ideas from somebody who's done the electronics side of a parallel64.

[budude]

This sounds much like the Grinch 64-channel controller - you may want to look at that as an example how to control 64 channels with a parallel port interface. If not that then the older 595 controllers might get you there also. Here's the Grinch: http://www.christmasinshirley.com/wiki/index.php?title=The_GRINCH_Controller.

[RavingLunatic]

Ray,

I applaud your continued efforts to create you own solutions. I understood the desire for the Parallel12, simple and easy to put to into action. But your new idea is either just a strong desire to do something unique or the lack of understanding of what is currently available.

The Olsen 595 and Simple 595 plug-ins will give you over 1000 channels (based on how many pulses could be sent out during a single VIXEN event) with just using 3 lines on the parallel port and the 8-line 595 plug-in would be over 8000 using 10 lines.

So if your goal is more channels, then it seems that existing methods would be the way to go.

If your goal is just to do something unique then by all means continue on your path.

Don't want to discourage but wanted to make sure you knew what was available.

[Ray]

Don't agree with you that it's anything unique or original at all.

I'm almost positive that people have done parallel64 many, many, many times before since parallel was the number 1 experimenter/ engineer's choice up till 2004 (well after the arrival of USB by the way). And there are 1000s of projects from robotics to temperature sensors and more , all using parallel port.

Believe also that many people have even done parallel64 with christmaslights (just got a link from ErnieHorning that will pursue at computerchristmas.com)


Yes, the Olsen595/grinch is my next project after the parallel64. (Doing this for fun and knowledge). My understanding of it now (will check later when I get into that project) is that it is basically using shift registers to turn the parallel port into a type of pseudo-serial port. But as I said I'll get to that later when I start that project.

Back on topic of the thread: My concern at the moment as I originally stated was between a 3 to 8 decoder and a 4 to 16 decoder. The concern is if the 4 to 16 decoder choice would limit me to only 32 lines by using too many control lines for chip select etc. and not allow the full 64 lines.

[Ray]

Followed ErnieHorning's suggestion and looked up the article by Hill Robertson at computerchristmas.com

Not just parallel64 but actually parallel320.
That is Hill Robertson gets 320 channels out of one parallel port.

But it takes him 240 writes to the parallel port to get all the data out.
That is because he uses the 8 data lines in 2 ways,
first to set the 8 data bits for a latch (set of 8 channels)
and then to choose the steering to the right flip flop out of 40 (40 by 8 for the 320).
And he steers to the right latch of the 40 by dividing the 8 parallel lines into,
Five data lines to chose one of 5 groups,and the remaining 3 data lines to feed the 3to8 decoder to select one of 8 latches in the group (5 by 8 to select one of the 40)
So his 6 write procedure (data, control, control, steering, control,control) to select one latch has to be looped through 40 times. Wow.

But he's done it and says the 240 writes produce no noticeable effect for the human eye even on a slow old computer.
Still it's an accomplishment. As he says "I wanted to prove to myself that I could do it....So I did"
Bravo. It's all for fun and to prove you can do it.

With 3 parallel ports that would allow one to control 960 light channels. Not that I'd ever want to run that many light channels.

But when I look at what he has to do it may be similar to the Olsen595 in some ways. But I'll keep that for later.

Still not answered by questions about using 4 to 16 decoders instead of 3 to 8 decoders.So maybe I'll just try with 4to16 decoders first and see what comes out.

[Ray]

RavingLunatic said

"I applaud your continued efforts to create you own solutions. I understood the desire for the Parallel12, simple and easy to put to into action. But your new idea is either just a strong desire to do something unique or the lack of understanding of what is currently available."



I can't help what you understand or don't. I mean I can't understand if your philosophy of life is english utilitarianism or american pragmatism. And so what?

Mr. Grahman Bell I can understand your desire to help a deaf girl but all this playing around with electricity....
Mr Edison I can understand your desire to make improvements to the telegraph but what's with all this
desire to make electric light.

I don't understand why so many people are here in this forum doing DIY lights if they aren't having fun and a good time at it and if
they can't LOL once in a while
and I don't understand why they don't have any spirit of exploration, investigation or learning.

And so what. If I don't understand you and you don't understand me.

There are lots of people like me around too and it's them who usually help with answers. And to help your understanding we're not usually motivated by vainglory. And yes sometimes what we do seems impractical to others.

[kychristmas]

In that simple statement, I see no where that he was Critical of you. I see RL as trying to clarify which one of those categories you are in. Most new members that come on here are simply folks wanting the easiest and cheapest way to get their displays animated. At least 95% want to use what is the most common and provides the greatest amount of support from the community. They have no desire to experiment and re-engineer a controller. So when you start asking questions and it seems you are going down the wrong path, the members assume you are a 95 percenter and step up and try to get you back on what they feel is the correct path. Not sure why you take offense to anyone trying to help. If you ask for help, you should appreciate any answers you get whether they are correct, off-base, or in total agreement with your approach.

And most importantly, who are you to say we aren't having "fun?" Very few of us members are electronics engineers. So what is Fun and enjoyable for us, is not what the same as it is for you and the other advanced members. Recently, I have taken the basic Renard design and started playing with Firmware to make it do other things specific to my needs. I now understand both AC and DC control enough to understand how to create just about anything I want to.

Since you joined in December, all I have seen from you is a bunch of questions, then questions about the answers and suggestions, and then criticism of members who are trying to help, but simply don't understand your intentions. It's simple... if you don't like the answers, then stop asking the question! Regardless, do not criticize the membership because we aren't what you think we should be or not providing the answers you want.

I'm guessing there's very, very, very few members that can provide you answers about using "4 to 16 decoders instead of 3 to 8 decoders." It doesn't mean that attempts to help should be criticized or less appreciated. Because you are so caught up in what people are answering, you missed the fact that the Hill 320 design and ComputerChristmas.com had been brought to you before Ernie suggested you look at them.




RavingLunatic said

"I applaud your continued efforts to create you own solutions. I understood the desire for the Parallel12, simple and easy to put to into action. But your new idea is either just a strong desire to do something unique or the lack of understanding of what is currently available."

I can't help what you understand or don't. I mean I can't understand if your philosophy of life is english utilitarianism or american pragmatism. And so what?

Mr. Grahman Bell I can understand your desire to help a deaf girl but all this playing around with electricity....
Mr Edison I can understand your desire to make improvements to the telegraph but what's with all this
desire to make electric light.

I don't understand why so many people are here in this forum doing DIY lights if they aren't having fun and a good time at it and if
they can't LOL once in a while
and I don't understand why they don't have any spirit of exploration, investigation or learning.

And so what. If I don't understand you and you don't understand me.

There are lots of people like me around too and it's them who usually help with answers. And to help your understanding we're not usually motivated by vainglory. And yes sometimes what we do seems impractical to others.

[Wayne J]

I can't help what you understand or don't. I mean I can't understand if your philosophy of life is english utilitarianism or american pragmatism. And so what?

Mr. Grahman Bell I can understand your desire to help a deaf girl but all this playing around with electricity....
Mr Edison I can understand your desire to make improvements to the telegraph but what's with all this
desire to make electric light.

I don't understand why so many people are here in this forum doing DIY lights if they aren't having fun and a good time at it and if
they can't LOL once in a while
and I don't understand why they don't have any spirit of exploration, investigation or learning.

And so what. If I don't understand you and you don't understand me.

There are lots of people like me around too and it's them who usually help with answers. And to help your understanding we're not usually motivated by vainglory. And yes sometimes what we do seems impractical to others.

The tone of this post is not very friendly (I actually read it as very rude). Try to play nice. ;)

[Reddy_Kilowatt]

First, I don't think this belongs in the Vixen forum.

But it could be done with a good parallel port. Maybe you can adapt it to run with Vixen.

I dug up some stuff that I hadn't seen in a while... Pardon my dust..:razz:

In the late 80's, I wanted to animate some Christmas lights using an old Commodore 64's user port. The first design I had, used 4 of 16 decoders with a flip flop wired as a toggle, driving the output. The idea was to address the output once to turn it on, then address (poke) it again to turn it off.

9465

The unfinished 64 channel board :

9466





The second design, used 3 of 8 decoders and 74LS259 addressable latches. I couldn't find the schematic. It's around here.. someplace..;-)

Almost finished, 128 channel board using 259's:

9467

Just about as much fun as an old fashioned Ledtriks. :roll:

9468

I ran my first blinky-flashy using an experimenters breadboard. The thought of setting it to (Sid ?) music never occurred to me at the time.


-Craig

[budude]

Hey Craig - there seems to be a problem with the attachments - wow - Commodore 64 - brings back memories...

[Mactayl]

First, I don't think this belongs in the Vixen forum.

But it could be done with a good parallel port. Maybe you can adapt it to run with Vixen.

I dug up some stuff that I hadn't seen in a while... Pardon my dust..:razz:

In the late 80's, I wanted to animate some Christmas lights using an old Commodore 64's user port. The first design I had, used 4 of 16 decoders with a flip flop wired as a toggle, driving the output. The idea was to address the output once to turn it on, then address (poke) it again to turn it off.

The second design, used 3 of 8 decoders and 74LS259 addressable latches. I couldn't find the schematic. It's around here.. someplace..;-)

Almost finished, 128 channel board using 259's:

Just about as much fun as an old fashioned Ledtriks. :roll:

I ran my first blinky-flashy using an experimenters breadboard. The thought of setting it to (Sid ?) music never occurred to me at the time.


-Craig

Man does that stuff bring back the old days.....:shock:

[dirknerkle]

I did a similar thing with an Apple II+ using the joystick port, but of course it was nowhere near as exotic nor did it have as many channels. I did have it synchronized to music however, using the internal Apple tone generator and simple Christmas melodies, but the tone was so monotonous and grating on my nerves, I took it out.

Ahhhh.... those were the days.... (sigh...)

[Ray]

The tone of this post is not very friendly (I actually read it as very rude). Try to play nice. ;)

I can't help what you find as rude.
I don't see anywhere that I was critical of people.
I see a lot of people getting uptight and so I turn it to humor.

By the way I don't mind people that give good advice. What I use humor on his
people who are NOT there to give advice. But rather (whatever they want to call it)
are there to putdown others. So I use humor on them.

I have indicated at least a dozen times what I am interested in and yet people still come and give putdowns. "you don't understand" or "you are not aware" etc. and call it "due diligence or whatever".

Do people really think, after you've noted it a dozen times, that you don't know parallel is old?


I tried the "diligence" of these forum members on my neighbor. He was tinkering with his old Model T so I came to him "Model T's are dead." "They haven't made a model T in over 80 years" "Don't you know that no detroit engineer would make a car like that again." etc etc etc. At first he wanted to get the shotgun out but then, since he knows me, he burst into laughter.

If you see someone working on a model T and you come up to him with those types of comments. Especially after someone has pointed out (repeatedly) that they are just working on these old cars for fun. Then you wonder if they are just joking or are they somehow, in some weird way, seriously thinking you don't know that nobody makes a model T anymore. So the best way to respond is with humor.

You accuse my fun of being rude. Well I could accuse all these people of being rude too. But I don't. I assume they are just having fun with a newcomer and so I joke back too. That's being friendly not unfriendly.

Seems you are the one who doesn't know that. If you think that's unfriendly then that's your problem. Try to laugh when people rib you. I rib back when people rib me. Nothing unfriendly about it.

[Wayne J]

Try to work on the attitude you are using here.

[P. Short]

Even though this thread is locked, I will try to ignore all of the subsequent exchanges and reply to the first message...

If I were attempting to do a parallel64, I would tend to use eight 74HCT374 (or '574') chips connected to the data lines, and then a single LS138 connected to the parallel port control lines. Of the four control lines, three would go to the output selection lines, and the fourth one would go to one of the '138 enable lines.

The other scheme (using 4:16 decoders on the data lines) would be more complex, I think. If I understand correctly how you want to use the 4:16 decoders, it would be similar to the Hill-320 design, and you would need some sort of latch on the inputs to the decoder. On the other hand, I'm not sure at all that I understood what you were trying to say when you mentioned this approach.

[P. Short]

I have unlocked this thread in the hope that further messages will all be of a technical nature, without any rancor, whining or snarkiness. If this hope proves false, this thread will be locked again or other measures taken.

[Entropy]

Another option would be a CPLD to handle the logic items.

Using discrete DIP logic is going to drive up your PCB real estate requirements (and hence cost) quite a bit, especially when trying to route 8 lines to 8 chips.

I/O routing and requirements become a lot easier when you use a bunch of 595s, however bit banging data to these out of a parallel port fast enough and reliably enough gets difficult.

[P. Short]

Come to think of it (after reading reddy's post), using nine HCT259 chips (or CD4099, for that matter) would be a more compact design than using '374/'574 parts. Eight of the parts hold the latched data, the ninth would be used as a 3:8 decoder, so that all of the parts are the same.