Related
I really need to know that can I simulate the simple circuits like RC, OP-AMP, RL, or RLC in labview?
Or it can only make processes for recorded signals?
I think, it cannot create and simulate the electrical circuits like pscpice or simulink.
Please help me if you know it cannot 100% work.
LabVIEW is a tool for graphical programming.
Of course, you can (try to) build up a simulation tool with it, similiar to what you would do in C, but you'd have to do it completely by hand, as the authors of the several *Spice did as well.
It definitely cannot simulate anything Spice-like. It is as if you would ask if you could do compiling from within Excel, or do database management with Paint.
LabVIEW cannot simulate circuits.
If you are looking for general-purpose software that can capture and simulate electronic circuits, LabVIEW is not suitable.
If you want to simulate specific, simple circuits like the ones you list, for which you can easily define the set of equations that determine their behaviour, you should be able to do it in LabVIEW, using the mathematics functions for example. This would make most sense if you wanted to link your simulation with some other function of LabVIEW such as hardware input/output, graphing, data analysis etc.
Sorry, but your circuit simulator is in another castle!
I would recommend another tool (from National Instruments) called Multisim.
http://www.ni.com/multisim/
Does anyone know of any way to programmatically control the RPMs of a Mac's fans? I briefly checked the Apple Dev site, but couldn't find anything. I'm guessing it's not as easy as:
[fans faster];
I'm wondering how smcFanControl achieves this. Am I right to assume that the "smc" in "smcFanControl" stands for System Management Controller?
Update:
smcFanControl source code is released under GLP license! ^_^ Oh, yeah! Free knowledge!
You are correct on two counts: SMC does stand for "System Management Controller", and fooling around with it isn't as simple as [fans faster]. Programming the SMC requires knowledge of the firmware and some down-and-dirty hardware device driver programming. You probably have to talk to the manufacturer just to get the specs, and if you do, you're not going to be able to program it in Objective C. Alas, you're probably better off trying to control smcFanControl using AppleScript :)
this answer may not able to help. I don't have Mac so I don't know how it works, just tell some basics.
Generally, a computer FAN speed control is handled by SuperIO chip or BMC(bus management controller) chip.
if ur board using a SuperIO, then it is very hard to modify the FAN speed since the speed adjustment algorithm is fixed (fused) inside the chip.
if the board using BMC or similar solution, it will use Firmware to control the speed. most the firmware is upgrade-able by special tool.
above solutions will provide hardware level fan speed control, but the OS level can not change the speed.
I suppose the smcFancontrol in Mac is not a command to change the FAN speed, but able to enable "smart FAN speed control" function.
I'm in the processes of buying a new data acquisition system for my company to use for various projects. At first, it's primary purpose will be to monitor up to 20 thermocouples and control the temperature of a composites oven. However, I also plan on using it to monitor accelerometers, strain gauges, and to act as a signal generator.
I probably won't be the only one to use it, but I have a good bit of programming experience with Atmel microcontrollers (C). I've used LabVIEW before, but ~5 years ago. LabVIEW would be good because it is easy to pick up on for both me and my coworkers. On the flip side, it's expensive. Right now I have a NI CompactDAQ system with 2 voltage and one thermocouple cards + LabVIEW speced out and it's going to cost $5779!
I'm going to try to get the same I/O capabilities with different NI hardware for less $ + LabVIEW to see if I can get it for less $. I'd like to see if anyone has any suggestions other than LabVIEW for me.
Thanks in advance!
Welcome to test and measurement. It's pretty expensive for pre-built stuff, but you trade money for time.
You might check out the somewhat less expensive Agilent 34970A (and associated cards). It's a great workhorse for different kinds of sensing, and, if I recall correctly, it comes with some basic software.
For simple temperature control, you might consider a PID controller (Watlow or Omega used to be the brands, but it's been a few years since I've looked at them).
You also might look into the low-cost usb solutions from NI. The channel count is lower, but they're fairly inexpensive. They do still require software of some type, though.
There are also a fair number of good smaller companies (like Hytek Automation) that produce some types of measurement and control devices or sub-assemblies, but YMMV.
There's a lot of misconception about what will and will not work with LabView and what you do and do not need to build a decent system with it.
First off, as others have said, test and measurement is expensive. Regardless of what you end up doing, the system you describe IS going to cost thousands to build.
Second, you don't NEED to use NI hardware with LabView. For thermocouples your best bet is to look into multichannel or multiple single-channel thermocouple units - something that reads from a thermocouple and outputs to something like RS-232, etc. The OMEGABUS Digital Transmitters are an example, but many others exist.
In this way, you need only a breakout card with lots of RS-232 ports and you can grow your system as it needs it. You can still use labview to acquire the data via RS-232 and then display, log, process, etc, it however you like.
Third party signal generators would also work, for example. You can pick up good ones (with GPIB connection) reasonably cheaply and with a GPIB board can integrate it into LabView as well. This if you want something like a function generator, of course (duty cycled pulses, standard sine/triangle/ramp functions, etc). If you're talking about arbitrary signal generation then this remains a reasonably expensive thing to do (if $5000 is our goalpost for "expensive").
This also hinges on what you're needing the signal generation for - if you're thinking for control signals then, again, there may be cheaper and more robust opitons available. For temperature control, for example, separate hardware PID controllers are probably the best bet. This also takes care of your thermocouple problem since PID controllers will typically accept thermocouple inputs as well. In this way you only need one interface (RS-232, for example) to the external PID controller and you have total access in LabView to temperature readings as well as the ability to control setpoints and PID parameters in one unit.
Perhaps if you could elaborate on not just the system components as you've planned them at present, but the ultimaty system functionality, it may be easier to suggest alternatives - not simply alternative hardware, but alternative system design altogether.
edit :
Have a look at Omega CNi8C22-C24 and CNiS8C24-C24 units -> these are temperature and strain DIN PID units which will take inputs from your thermocouples and strain gauges, process the inputs into proper measurements, and communicate with LabView (or anything else) via RS-232.
This isn't necessarily a software answer, but if you want low cost data aquisition, you might want to look at the labjack. It's basically a microcontroller & usb interface wrapped in a nice box (like an arduino (Atmel AVR + USB-Serial converter) but closed source) with a lot of drivers and functions for various languages, including labview.
Reading a thermocouple can be tough because microvolts are significant, so you either need a high resolution A/D or an amplifier on the input. I think NI may sell a specialized digitizer for thermocouple readings, but again you'll pay.
As far as the software answer, labview will work nicely with almost any hardware you choose -- e.g. I built my own temperature controller based on an arduino (with an AD7780) wrote a little interface using serial commands and then talked with it using labview. But if you're willing to pay a premium for a guaranteed to work out of the box solution, you can't go wrong with labview and an NI part.
LabWindows CVI is NI's C IDE, with good integration with their instrument libraries and drivers. If you're willing to write C code, maybe you could get by with the base version of LabWindows CVI, versus having to buy a higher-end LabView version that has the functionality you need. LabWindows CVI and LabView are priced identically for the base versions, so
that may not be much of an advantage.
Given the range of measurement types you plan to make and the fact that you want colleagues to be able to use this, I would suggest LabVIEW is a good choice - it will support everything you want to do and make it straightforward to put a decent GUI on it. Assuming you're on Windows then the base package should be adequate and if you want to build stand-alone applications, either to deploy on other PCs or to make a particular setup as simple as possible for your colleagues, you can buy the application builder separately later.
As for the DAQ hardware, you can certainly save money - e.g. Measurement Computing have a low cost 8-channel USB thermocouple input device - but that may cost you in setup time or be less robust to repeated changes in your hardware configuration for different tests.
I've got a bit of experience with LabView stuff, and if you can afford it, it's awesome (and useful for a lot of different applications).
However, if your applications are simple you might actually be able to hack together something with one or two arduino's here, it's OSS, and has some good cheap hardware boards.
LabView really comes into its own with real time applications or RAD (because GUI dev is super easy), so if all you're doing is running a couple of thermopiles I'd find something cheaper.
A few thousand dollars is not a lot of money for process monitoring and control systems. If you do a cost/benefit analysis, you will very quickly recover your development costs if the scope of the system is right and if it does the job it is intended to do.
Another tool to consider is National Instruments measurement studio with VB .NET. This way you can still use the NI hardware if you want and can still build nice gui's quickly.
Alternatively, as others have said, it is perfectly viable to get industrial serial based instruments and talk to them with LabVIEW, VB .NET, c# or whatever you like.
If you go down the route of serial instruments, another piece of hardware that might be useful is a serial terminal (example). These allow you to connect arbitrary numbers of devices to your network. You computers can then use them as though they were physical COM ports.
Have you looked at MATLAB. They have a toolbox called Data Acquisition. compactDAQ is a supported hardware.
LabVIEW is a great visual programming environment. In terms if we want to drag,drop and visualize our system. NI Hardware also comes with the NIDAQmx Library which can be accessed through our code. Probably a feasible solution for you would be to import the libraries into another programming language and write code for all the activities which otherwise you were going to perform using LabVIEW. Though other overheads like code optimization would be the users responsibility, you are free to tweak the normal method flow, by introducing your own improvements at suitable junctures in the DAQ process.
As a hobby project to keep myself out of trouble, I'd like to build a little programmer timer device. It will basically accept a program which is a list of times and then count down from each time.
I'd like to use a C or Java micro controller. I have used BASIC in the past to make a little autonomous robot, so this time around I'd like something different.
What micro controller and display would you recommend? I am looking to keep it simple, so the program would be loaded into memory via computer (serial is ok, but USB would make it easier)
Just use a PIC like 16F84 or 16F877 for this. It is more than enough.
As LCD use a 16 x 2 LCD. It is easy to use + will give a nice look to your project.
LCD
The language is not a matter. You can use PIC C, Micro C or any thing you like. The LCD's interface is really easy to drive.
As other components you will just need the crystal and 2 capacitors as oscillator + pull up resister. The rest of the components depend on the input method that you are going to use to set the times.
If you are using a computer to load the list then you will need additional circuit to change the protocols. Use MAX 232 to do that. If you want to use USB, you need to go ahead and use a PIC with USB support. (18F series)
(source: sodoityourself.com)
This is a set of nice tutorials you can use. You can purchase the products from them as well. I purchased once from them.
I would go with the msp430. An ez430 is $20 and you can get them at digikey or from ti directly, then sets of 3 microcontroller boards for $10 after that. llvm and gcc (and binutils) compiler support. Super simple to program, extremely small and extremely low power.
There are many ways to do this, and a number of people have already given pretty good suggestions AVR or PIC are good starting points for a microcontroller to work with that doesn't require too much in the way of complicated setup (hardware & software) or expense (these micros are very cheap). Honestly I'm somewhat surprised that nobody has mentioned Arduino here yet, which happens to have the advantage of being pretty easy to get started with, provides a USB connection (USB->Serial, really), and if you don't like the board that the ATMega MCU is plugged into, you can later plug it in wherever you might want it. Also, while the provided programming environment provides some high level tools to easily protype things you're still free to tweak the registers on the device and write any C code you might want to run on it.
As for an LCD display to use, I would recommend looking for anything that's either based on an HD44780 or emulates the behavior of one. These will typically use a set of parallel lines for talking to the display, but there are tons code examples for interfacing with these. In Arduino's case, you can find examples for this type of display, and many others, on the Arduino Playground here: http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Code/LCD
As far as a clock is concerned, you can use the built-in clock that many 8-bit micros these days provide, although they're not always ideal in terms of precision. You can find an example for Arduino on doing this sort of thing here: http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Code/DateTime. If you want something that might be a little more precise you can get a DS1307 (Arduino example: http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1191209057/0).
I don't necessarily mean to ram you towards an Arduino, since there are a huge number of ways to do this sort of thing. Lately I've been working with 32-bit ARM micros (don't do that route first, much steeper learning curve, but they have many benefits) and I might use something in that ecosystem these days, but the Arduino is easy to recommend because it's relatively inexpensive, there's a large community of people out there using it, and chances are you can find a code example for at least part of what you're trying to do. When you need something that has more horsepower, configuration options, or RAM, there are options out there.
Here are a few places where you can find some neat hardware (Arduino-related and otherwise) for projects like the one you're describing:
SparkFun Electronics
Adafruit Industries
DigiKey (this is a general electronics supplier, they have a bit of everything)
There are certainly tons more, though :-)
I agree with the other answers about using a PIC.
The PIC16F family does have C compilers available, though it is not ideally suited for C code. If performance is an issue, the 18F family would be better.
Note also that some PICs have internal RC oscillators. These aren't as precise as external crystals, but if that doesn't matter, then it's one less component (or three with its capacitors) to put on your board.
Microchip's ICD PIC programmer (for downloading and debugging your PIC software) plugs into the PC's USB port, and connects to the microcontroller via an RJ-11 connector.
Separately, if you want the software on the microcontroller to send data to the PC (e.g. to print messages in HyperTerminal), you can use a USB to RS232/TTL converter. One end goes into your PC's USB socket, and appears as a normal serial port; the other comes out to 5 V or 3.3 V signals that can be connected directly to your processor's UART, with no level-shifting required.
We've used TTL-232R-3V3 from FDTI Chip, which works perfectly for this kind of application.
There are several ways to do this, and there is a lot of information on the net. If you are going to use micro controllers then you might need to invest in some programming equipment for them. This won't cost you much though.
Simplest way is to use the sinus wave from the power grid. In Europe the AC power has a frequency of 50Hz, and you can use that as the basis for your clock signal.
I've used Atmel's ATtiny and ATmega, which are great for programming simple and advanced projects. You can program it with C or Assembly, there are lots of great projects for it on the net, and the programmers available are very cheap.
Here is a project I found by Googling AVR 7 segment clock.
A second vote for PIC. Also, I recommend the magazine Circuit Cellar Ink. Some technical bookstores carry it, or you can subscribe: http://www.circellar.com/
PIC series will be good, since you are creating a timer, I recommend C or Assembly (Assembly is good), and use MPLAB as the development environment. You can check how accurate your timer with 'Stopwatch' in MPLAB. Also PIC16F877 has built in Hardware Serial Port. Also PIC16F628 has a built in Hardware serial port. But PIC16F877 has more ports. For more accurate timers, using higher frequency oscillators is recommended.
In the last two months I've worked as a simple application using a computer vision library(OpenCV).
I wish to run that application directly from the webcam without the need of an OS. I'm curious to know if that my application can be burned into a chip in order to not have the OS to run it.
Ofcorse the process can be expensive, but I'm just curious. Do you have any links about that?
ps: the application is written in C.
I'd use something bigger than a PIC, for example a small 32 bit ARM processor.
Yes. It is theoretically possible to port your app to PIC chips.
But...
There are C compilers for the PIC chip, however, due to the limitations of a microcontroller, you might find that the compiler, and the microcontroller itself is far too limited for computer vision work, especially if your initial implementation of the app was done on a full-blown PC:
You'll only have integer math available to you, in most cases, if not all (can't quote me on that, but our devs at work don't have floating point math for their PIC apps and it causes many foul words to emanate from their cubes). Either that, or you'll need to hook to an external math coprocessor.
You'll have to figure out how to get the PIC chip to talk USB to the camera. I know this is possible, but it will require additional hardware, and R&D time.
If you need strict timing control,
you might even have to program the
app in assembler.
You'd have to port portions of OpenCV to the PIC chip, if it hasn't been already. My guess is not.
If your'e not already familiar with microcontroller programming, you'll need some time to get up to speed on the differences between desktop PC programming and microcontroller programming, and you'll have to gain some experience in that. This may not be an issue for you.
Basically, it would probably be best to re-write the whole program from scratch given a PIC chip constraint. Good thing is though, you've done a lot of design work already. It would mainly be hardware/porting work.
OR...
You could try using a small embedded x86 single-board PC, perhaps in the PC/104 form factor, with your OS/app on a CF card. It's a real bone fide PC, you just add your software. Good thing is, you probably wouldn't have to re-write your app, unless it had ridiculous memory footprint. Embedded PC vendors are starting to ship boards based on 1 GHz Intel Atoms, and if you needed more help you could perhaps hook a daughterboard onto the PC-104 bus. You'll work around all of the limitations listed above, as your using an equivalent platform to the PC you developed your app on. And it has USB ports! If you do a thorough cost analysis and if your'e cool with a larger form factor, you might find it to be cheaper/quicker to use a system based on a SBC than rolling a solution using PIC chips/microcontrollers.
A quick search of PC-104 on Google would reveal many vendors of SBCs.
OR...
And this would be really cheap - just get a off-the-shelf cheap Netbook, overwrite the OEM OS, and run the code on there. Hackish, but cheap, and really easy - your hardware issues would be resolved within a week.
Just some ideas.
I think you'll find this might grow into pretty large project.
It's obviously possible to implement a stand-alone hardware solution to do something like this. Off the top of my head, Rabbit's solutions might get you to the finish-line faster. But you might be able to find some home-grown Beagle Board or Gumstix projects as well.
Two Google links I wanted to emphasize:
Rabbit: "Camera Interface Application Kit"
Gumstix: "Connecting a CMOS camera to a Gumstix Connex motherboard"
I would second Nate's recommendation to take a look at Rabbit's core modules.
Also, GHIElectronics has a product called the Embedded Master that runs .Net MicroFramework and has USB host/device capabilities built-in as well as a rich library that is a subset of the .Net framework. It runs on an Arm processor and is fairly inexpensive (> $85). Though not nearly as cheap as a single PIC chip it does come with a lot of glue logic pre-built onto the module.
CMUCam
I think you should have a look at the CMUcam project, which offers affordable hardware and an image processing library which runs on their hardware.