[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
Title: | Mathematics at DEC |
|
Moderator: | RUSURE::EDP |
|
Created: | Mon Feb 03 1986 |
Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 2083 |
Total number of notes: | 14613 |
895.0. "logic design: count difference in #/pulses" by EAGLE1::BEST (R D Best, sys arch, I/O) Wed Jun 29 1988 16:10
I have been trying to solve this problem for a while now and I'm wondering
if there is a good way to do it that yields accurate results without
multiple counters.
I have an application where I have two pulse streams whose frequencies are
proportional measures of some instrumented quantities. I'll call the two
quantities f1 and f2 (and also their corresponding instantaneous clock
frequencies).
Each pulse of one clock (f1) represents an incoming count and each pulse of
the other clock represents an outgoing count. The quantity of interest is
the difference between the number of pulses counted on each line. This
quantity is to be computed and sampled at each asserting edge of the
faster clock (f1).
From the situation, it's reasonable to assume that no two counts on line f2 will
ever occur during a single f1 count interval. Also the f1 and f2 pulse
streams are asynchronous, and the width and spacing of pulses will be
variable.
I'd like to be able to do this with just one up-down counter, a few latches, and
some random logic. It seems that there should be some way to do this by
canceling f1 pulses with each f2 pulse and clocking a counter with f1
pulses (either edge).
Every simple circuit that I try to generate to do this seems to have a
race condition caused by the clocks being asynchronous. The only solutions
that I've been able to generate require two counters, subtracting logic,
and a faster (than f1 and f2) synchronising clock.
Can anyone suggest a way to do this without adding a second counter and
arithmetic logic ? Extra credit for solutions not requiring the faster
synchronising clock.
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
895.1 | | EAGLE1::BEST | R D Best, sys arch, I/O | Wed Jul 06 1988 16:59 | 15 |
| From: TARKIN::OUELLETTE "OS/2 -- Half an operating system?" 29-JUN-1988 16:18
To: EAGLE1::BEST
Subj:
+---------------------->+--\
+-----+ | +-----+ |AND|---+
f2 -+>|d q|-|---+----->|d q|----->+--/ |
| _| | | | _| |
f1 -+>|> R q|-+ | +-->|> R q|--+ |
| +-----+ | | +-----+ +-->+--\ | +-----+
| ^ | | ^ |AND|---|---->|d q|-
+----|--------|--+ | +-->+--/ | | _|
| +---------|-----+ | f1->|> q|--->+--\
+------------------+-----------------+ +-----+ |AND|->to countr
f1->+--/
|
895.2 | | ZFC::DERAMO | For all you do, disk bugs for you. | Wed Jul 06 1988 20:04 | 4 |
| Can you expand on .-1 a little, such as "This works"
or "good try, but ..." or something like that? :-)
Dan
|
895.3 | EDN may have a solution | EAGLE1::BEST | R D Best, sys arch, I/O | Mon Jul 11 1988 14:40 | 3 |
| There is a circuit in the EDN Design Ideas Special Issue, Vol. 1,
7-jul-88, p. 93 that may meet the requirement. I'm not sure that
the EDN circuit will work for non-fixed frequency pulse streams.
|