Plex64 schematic? #1
Comments
|
Hello, I want to sell these within the next year and have built and benchtop tested this design but I wanted to get some more robust real-life testing/experience done before I start selling them, but of course the project I designed it for has stalled for many months now. I have some assembled boards and I'll send you one to play with and the schematic if you email me at chris@csteenerson.com and let me know where to send it. Cheers, |
|
Email sent. Thanks |
|
Chris,
I'm about to create a testing design that utilizes your Plex64, however, I
realized that I actually have more circuits to test. Could I get another
Plex64 from you? Can pay for it if necessary.
About my design. I make cable harnesses for a motorcycle product and need
to test the integrity of each finished harness. This requires testing for
continuity for the wiring harness, as well as, for unwanted crosstalk. In
total I have about 75 connections... so have a need for a second Plex64.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Steve Glowacki
…On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:29 PM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
Chris,
That sounds great. Thank you! My project is to build something you test
my wire harness continuity. Have a need to test 30 wires, so 60 I/O s to
program the testing patterns. This will be a good test bed.
Steve Glowacki
3440 Old Jones Rd, Dunkirk, MD 20754
Again, thanks for letting me try this!
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 5:44 PM steenerson ***@***.***> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to sell these within the next year and have built and benchtop
> tested this design but I wanted to get some more robust real-life
> testing/experience done before I start selling them, but of course the
> project I designed it for has stalled for many months now.
>
> I have some assembled boards and I'll send you one to play with if you
> email me at ***@***.*** and let me know where to send it.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#1 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGA5YH3VVX7KIMH7QVPPBTDSYOI27ANCNFSM4VWAIREA>
> .
>
|
|
Chris,
Thought I'd show you what I'm working on. This is a cable tester using
your Plex64's as a foundation. While it is designed to specifically
support the type of Harnesses I make, it can be used generically for any
harnesses up to 96 connections. I can adjust this to fully support 128
connections and fully use two of the Plex64s.
I'm writing the code now while the boards are being made. I'm thinking of
using an approach where EVERY possible combination of connections will be
tested for continuity and the outcome recorded in a matrix(es). Then this
test matrix can be compared to the stored matrix for each harness type
(representing the CORRECT outcomes). This might work nicely as it would be
easy to simply STORE the outcome of a new harness design into memory. Then
testing could simply be the process of selecting from memory which harness
profile is being tested.
I do need a second Plex64 to complete this project. If need be I can pay
for that one?
And of course any recommendations would be very welcome!!
Thanks,
Steve
…On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:04 PM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
Chris,
I'm about to create a testing design that utilizes your Plex64, however, I
realized that I actually have more circuits to test. Could I get another
Plex64 from you? Can pay for it if necessary.
About my design. I make cable harnesses for a motorcycle product and need
to test the integrity of each finished harness. This requires testing for
continuity for the wiring harness, as well as, for unwanted crosstalk. In
total I have about 75 connections... so have a need for a second Plex64.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Steve Glowacki
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:29 PM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> That sounds great. Thank you! My project is to build something you test
> my wire harness continuity. Have a need to test 30 wires, so 60 I/O s to
> program the testing patterns. This will be a good test bed.
>
> Steve Glowacki
> 3440 Old Jones Rd, Dunkirk, MD 20754
>
> Again, thanks for letting me try this!
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 5:44 PM steenerson ***@***.***> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I want to sell these within the next year and have built and benchtop
>> tested this design but I wanted to get some more robust real-life
>> testing/experience done before I start selling them, but of course the
>> project I designed it for has stalled for many months now.
>>
>> I have some assembled boards and I'll send you one to play with if you
>> email me at ***@***.*** and let me know where to send it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> —
>> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> <#1 (comment)>,
>> or unsubscribe
>> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGA5YH3VVX7KIMH7QVPPBTDSYOI27ANCNFSM4VWAIREA>
>> .
>>
>
|
|
Chris,
May I verify the MUX setup with Plex64? Is it correct that the outputs are
limits to the following:
- Channel 0-15 Only output is E
- Channel 16-31 Only output is F
- Channel 32-47 Only output is G
- Channel 48-63 Only output is H
How can I identify two channels within each group of 16 at the same time
for testing? Such as, Channel 0 and 1 able to be MUXd simultaneously to
two different outputs for testing? Idea is to set one of these channels as
an OUTPUT with a HIGH setting and then measure the INPUT on the other
channel. If they are connected, would read a HIGH voltage; otherwise, it
would be LOW.
Thanks,
Steve
…On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:12 AM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
Chris,
Thought I'd show you what I'm working on. This is a cable tester using
your Plex64's as a foundation. While it is designed to specifically
support the type of Harnesses I make, it can be used generically for any
harnesses up to 96 connections. I can adjust this to fully support 128
connections and fully use two of the Plex64s.
I'm writing the code now while the boards are being made. I'm thinking of
using an approach where EVERY possible combination of connections will be
tested for continuity and the outcome recorded in a matrix(es). Then this
test matrix can be compared to the stored matrix for each harness type
(representing the CORRECT outcomes). This might work nicely as it would be
easy to simply STORE the outcome of a new harness design into memory. Then
testing could simply be the process of selecting from memory which harness
profile is being tested.
I do need a second Plex64 to complete this project. If need be I can pay
for that one?
And of course any recommendations would be very welcome!!
Thanks,
Steve
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:04 PM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I'm about to create a testing design that utilizes your Plex64, however,
> I realized that I actually have more circuits to test. Could I get another
> Plex64 from you? Can pay for it if necessary.
>
> About my design. I make cable harnesses for a motorcycle product and
> need to test the integrity of each finished harness. This requires testing
> for continuity for the wiring harness, as well as, for unwanted crosstalk.
> In total I have about 75 connections... so have a need for a second Plex64.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Glowacki
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:29 PM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> That sounds great. Thank you! My project is to build something you
>> test my wire harness continuity. Have a need to test 30 wires, so 60 I/O s
>> to program the testing patterns. This will be a good test bed.
>>
>> Steve Glowacki
>> 3440 Old Jones Rd, Dunkirk, MD 20754
>>
>> Again, thanks for letting me try this!
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 5:44 PM steenerson ***@***.***>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I want to sell these within the next year and have built and benchtop
>>> tested this design but I wanted to get some more robust real-life
>>> testing/experience done before I start selling them, but of course the
>>> project I designed it for has stalled for many months now.
>>>
>>> I have some assembled boards and I'll send you one to play with if you
>>> email me at ***@***.*** and let me know where to send it.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> —
>>> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
>>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>>> <#1 (comment)>,
>>> or unsubscribe
>>> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGA5YH3VVX7KIMH7QVPPBTDSYOI27ANCNFSM4VWAIREA>
>>> .
>>>
>>
|
|
Chris,
I reviewed everything closely and THINK I figured it out. It appears the
Plex64 is a *4x16:1 MUX*. I missed that in the beginning, as I thought it
was a 64:1 MUX capability.
Looking over the schematics was able to add a single 4:1MUX of the 4 I/Os
using a TMUX1104DQAR. This is small enough that it fits nicely in a space
with very minor adjustments. It provides an *additional *single output
controlled by two address bits to the other outputs. With this the PLEX64
provides BOTH 4x16:4 & 64:1 MUX capability. I thought about adding some
code to the .h * .cpp files to support easy implementation, but wanted to
see what if you thought it worth it?
My only engineering concern is that this discreet doesn't change the
PlexE-H output signals to the UNO. I don't think it will, but maybe
something to verify?
Hope you don't mind me suggesting this.
Cheers,
Steve
…On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:24 AM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
Chris,
May I verify the MUX setup with Plex64? Is it correct that the outputs
are limits to the following:
- Channel 0-15 Only output is E
- Channel 16-31 Only output is F
- Channel 32-47 Only output is G
- Channel 48-63 Only output is H
How can I identify two channels within each group of 16 at the same time
for testing? Such as, Channel 0 and 1 able to be MUXd simultaneously to
two different outputs for testing? Idea is to set one of these channels as
an OUTPUT with a HIGH setting and then measure the INPUT on the other
channel. If they are connected, would read a HIGH voltage; otherwise, it
would be LOW.
Thanks,
Steve
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:12 AM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Thought I'd show you what I'm working on. This is a cable tester using
> your Plex64's as a foundation. While it is designed to specifically
> support the type of Harnesses I make, it can be used generically for any
> harnesses up to 96 connections. I can adjust this to fully support 128
> connections and fully use two of the Plex64s.
>
> I'm writing the code now while the boards are being made. I'm thinking
> of using an approach where EVERY possible combination of connections will
> be tested for continuity and the outcome recorded in a matrix(es). Then
> this test matrix can be compared to the stored matrix for each harness type
> (representing the CORRECT outcomes). This might work nicely as it would be
> easy to simply STORE the outcome of a new harness design into memory. Then
> testing could simply be the process of selecting from memory which harness
> profile is being tested.
>
> I do need a second Plex64 to complete this project. If need be I can pay
> for that one?
>
> And of course any recommendations would be very welcome!!
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:04 PM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> I'm about to create a testing design that utilizes your Plex64, however,
>> I realized that I actually have more circuits to test. Could I get another
>> Plex64 from you? Can pay for it if necessary.
>>
>> About my design. I make cable harnesses for a motorcycle product and
>> need to test the integrity of each finished harness. This requires testing
>> for continuity for the wiring harness, as well as, for unwanted crosstalk.
>> In total I have about 75 connections... so have a need for a second Plex64.
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steve Glowacki
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:29 PM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> That sounds great. Thank you! My project is to build something you
>>> test my wire harness continuity. Have a need to test 30 wires, so 60 I/O s
>>> to program the testing patterns. This will be a good test bed.
>>>
>>> Steve Glowacki
>>> 3440 Old Jones Rd, Dunkirk, MD 20754
>>>
>>> Again, thanks for letting me try this!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 5:44 PM steenerson ***@***.***>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I want to sell these within the next year and have built and benchtop
>>>> tested this design but I wanted to get some more robust real-life
>>>> testing/experience done before I start selling them, but of course the
>>>> project I designed it for has stalled for many months now.
>>>>
>>>> I have some assembled boards and I'll send you one to play with if you
>>>> email me at ***@***.*** and let me know where to send it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> —
>>>> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
>>>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>>>> <#1 (comment)>,
>>>> or unsubscribe
>>>> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGA5YH3VVX7KIMH7QVPPBTDSYOI27ANCNFSM4VWAIREA>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
|
|
Hi, That is correct, it is a quad 16-port expander. I will update the documentation to make this more clear. If you want it all to come from a single pin, you can also chain them together. For example run your analog input to the E channel, then connect the F channel input to E0, G to E1 and H to E2. You'll end up with 61 inputs this way and have to consider that some of the signals run through 2 voltage dividers too. |
|
Hi,
Very interesting. I hadn't thought of that.
…On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, 4:49 PM steenerson ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi,
That is correct, it is a quad 16-port expander. I will update the
documentation to make this more clear.
If you want it all to come from a single pin, you can also chain them
together. For example run your analog input to the E channel, then connect
the F channel input to E0, G to E1 and H to E2. You'll end up with 61
inputs this way and have to consider that some of the signals run through 2
voltage dividers too.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGA5YH5FKK4HQIPQ2XF3IELTBQDXPANCNFSM4VWAIREA>
.
|
|
Chris,
It appears the voltage divider circuits prevent this from being
bidirectional, correct? If so, may I offer a suggestion that might create
appeal with a wider audience. Two were implementations:
- Jumper pins to support the piggyback description you described:
- CHOIN to E0
- CH1IN to F0
- CH2IN to G0
- CH3IN to H0
- Jumper pins to choose between *Direct *or *Voltage Divider* to UNO:
- CH0IN - UNO A0 - A0Shield
- CH1IN - UNO A1 - A1Shield
- CH2IN - UNO A2 - A2Shield
- CH3IN - UNO A3 - A3Shield
Finding a simple 64:1 MUX for Arduino use is a challenge. There are lots of
'close-no-cigar' options. These changes might make your board very
popular... not to mention the $$$!
BTW, I own a small business designing, manuf, and selling custom motorcycle
parts - both mechanical and electrical. The design I'm working on is for a
Harness Tester for the shop for one of my main products. The larger board
I sent you earlier was a prototype, which has morphed into a grander
version #2. While It's designed for my harnesses, with very minor mods it
can be made useful as a Generic Tester. Let me know if you think that
could be something you'd like to offer with your Plex64. Maybe there's
something we can work out?
Cheers,
Steve
…On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 7:32 PM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi,
Very interesting. I hadn't thought of that.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, 4:49 PM steenerson ***@***.***> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That is correct, it is a quad 16-port expander. I will update the
> documentation to make this more clear.
>
> If you want it all to come from a single pin, you can also chain them
> together. For example run your analog input to the E channel, then connect
> the F channel input to E0, G to E1 and H to E2. You'll end up with 61
> inputs this way and have to consider that some of the signals run through 2
> voltage dividers too.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#1 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGA5YH5FKK4HQIPQ2XF3IELTBQDXPANCNFSM4VWAIREA>
> .
>
|
|
Chris,
I'm going with your suggestion to make a *61:1* setup by feeding outputs
from three of the 4067 outputs into one, then having that output feed
through the attenuation circuit to the UNO. This should eliminate the
voltage reduction you mentioned. Please see the attached schematic that
shows this.
*My question *is whether your current library files will support this?
Will the "setChannel(uint8_t pin, bool force = 0)" correctly set up the MUX
to connect the desired input (0-61) to the G output?
*The schematic does the following:*
- feeds H output -> G15
- feeds E output -> G14
- feeds F output -> H0
- G Output goes into the attenuation circuit that goes to *A2Shield* as
the single output to measure
I know you're very busy and hope you don't mind these questions. If your
current library doesn't support this, I can write my own. Just didn't want
to go down that road if it already works.
Thanks,
Steve
…On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 4:49 PM steenerson ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi,
That is correct, it is a quad 16-port expander. I will update the
documentation to make this more clear.
If you want it all to come from a single pin, you can also chain them
together. For example run your analog input to the E channel, then connect
the F channel input to E0, G to E1 and H to E2. You'll end up with 61
inputs this way and have to consider that some of the signals run through 2
voltage dividers too.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGA5YH5FKK4HQIPQ2XF3IELTBQDXPANCNFSM4VWAIREA>
.
|
|
Chris,
Wanted to share something that you might find useful. I really like your
design, but wanted to convert the jumper settings to software controls.
The attached variation on your original design does this. I haven't
written the associated files (Largely because I'm not experienced in that
yet!). You said you wanted to sell these and thought this might be a
viable consideration for your future customers. I tried to choose discreet
components that would maintain your higher voltage capability. If you do
have time to look this over, I would greatly appreciate it if you can let
me know of any issues you see with this.
BTW, this maintains te 64:4 MUX and doesn't not have a 61:1 option. For
me, the issue was more about having the MUX be bi-directional, which the
attenuation circuitry prevents. The s/w control capability provides that
flexibility to go back and forth depending on what test the code is running.
Thanks,
Steve
…On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:32 AM Steve ***@***.***> wrote:
Chris,
I'm going with your suggestion to make a *61:1* setup by feeding outputs
from three of the 4067 outputs into one, then having that output feed
through the attenuation circuit to the UNO. This should eliminate the
voltage reduction you mentioned. Please see the attached schematic that
shows this.
*My question *is whether your current library files will support this?
Will the "setChannel(uint8_t pin, bool force = 0)" correctly set up the MUX
to connect the desired input (0-61) to the G output?
*The schematic does the following:*
- feeds H output -> G15
- feeds E output -> G14
- feeds F output -> H0
- G Output goes into the attenuation circuit that goes to *A2Shield* as
the single output to measure
I know you're very busy and hope you don't mind these questions. If your
current library doesn't support this, I can write my own. Just didn't want
to go down that road if it already works.
Thanks,
Steve
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 4:49 PM steenerson ***@***.***>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That is correct, it is a quad 16-port expander. I will update the
> documentation to make this more clear.
>
> If you want it all to come from a single pin, you can also chain them
> together. For example run your analog input to the E channel, then connect
> the F channel input to E0, G to E1 and H to E2. You'll end up with 61
> inputs this way and have to consider that some of the signals run through 2
> voltage dividers too.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#1 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGA5YH5FKK4HQIPQ2XF3IELTBQDXPANCNFSM4VWAIREA>
> .
>
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hi,
I've searched for this shield, but am unable to find it. Do you have a link for purchasing or is the schematic available for review?
thanks,
Steve
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: