[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Building A VTTC



Original poster: FutureT@xxxxxxx In a message dated 8/21/06 11:27:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

Cameron,

You can use a counter circuit, but another approach is to
use a multi-position switch.  Then attach a different resistor or
pot to each position so that a particular position will give
a particular pulse rate.  This can be set up with a scope,
or it can be done carefully by beginning with a full 60 pps,
then gradually reducing the pulse rate and listening for the
change in sound or appearance, then measuring the resistance
of the variable pot (being used presently), at each pulse rate,
then incorporating
those resistance values into the resistors attached to the
multi-position switch.  Still another easier approach would be to
use a resistor in series with the staccato pot which limits the
pulse rate to not slower than lets say 10 pps.  This way the
entire rotation range of the pot will be in a useful range.
Then a large knob with pointer can be attached to the
staccato pot, and marks and
numbers can be attached to the chassis to correspond to
various breakrates.  Again a scope or careful listening/observing
is needed to set it up.


John



Original poster: "Cameron B. Prince" <cplists@xxxxxxxxxx>


Hey guys,

I think the consensus is we need some sort of counter to help determine the
current pulse rate of the staccato controller. John, this is what I had
emailed you about a few weeks ago. I think it would be really nice to
incorporate two 7 segment displays into the controller that display current
pulses per second. I have briefly looked into this and found the schematic
here:

http://martybugs.net/electronics/speedo.cgi

It's for a digital speedometer display but I think the concept is about the
same:

1) Take a sample
2) Perform an average
3) Display value
4) Return to step 1

What are your thoughts on this circuit and adapting it to interface with the
staccato controller? Is there a less complex way or circuit that would
provide the same results that you know of?

Thanks,
Cameron