|
I have the same issue but I think it's the ventilator...
|
|
|
|
|
Start with the simplest configuration that "works".
By your own words, you are starting out with at least 3 devices of unknown condition; you have no "baseline" to compare to in terms of success (which usually means at least "2" configurations: one that you can revert to when things stop working; and the other being the "work in progress").
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Read the data sheets yourself and make your own decision. You cannot expect people on the internet to be able to tell you what is best for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have a pair of speakers (max power input: 250W, nominal power output: 30W) connected to a class-D amplifier (TDA7492, 2x50W) powered by a 12V 72W power supply.
Playing music on this setup is way too loud.
I have already tried to place a resistor between the amp and each speaker which actually lowers the volume, but I think this is quiet a waste of energy, isn't it?
I want to play music from a raspberry pi later on and I guess it would be better to let the raspberry pi control the volume with a digital potentiometer, instead of controlling it in the music player of the raspberry. So, would a digipot be the answer to my problem?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
If you use an additional digital potentiometer, isn't that the same as placing resistors to the connection, either before or after the amplifier. After all those are typically resistor bridges. So the output level on the Pi would still be the same.
I would guess that controlling the volume in the Pi, before D/A converter, would lead to smallest energy consumption needed.
Also note that the components in the connections affect the quality of the sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have an app that needs to be able to write and image to a removable device. This usually means a Compact Flash or a CFast card. Up to this point, the application restricted drive selection to only removable drives - GetDeviceInfo returned this information reliably. Enter CFast cards which seem to be mounted as a SCSI device, and Windows sees them as a generic disk drive or removable, depending on the whims of the CFast card reader.
I've been perusing system call after system call, disk utilities, and what not, and I have not yet found a system call that will return to me any ID information from the removable disk.
Ideas?
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Can you not "infer" (somewhat) from the file format, total space, name and / or drive letter?
Even then, don't you give the user the option to make a choice? (i.e. Is this the correct device ... as in "I will erase / overwrite everything").
(This is practically a requirement when dealing with multiple COM ports; i.e. identifying the one to use).
Machine learning: note changes from one tally of drives to another.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
I can infer, but we're on the paranoid side - we want to avoid a user nuking their boot drive. So, I thought I would just ask. You'd be amazed at the number of times people have actually done this. Even if we ask "Are you sure?" somehow we always get blamed 
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
An "empty" drive obviously wouldn't be a "boot drive".
Perhaps in "phase 1", one only backs up to "empty drives".
I could go on.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Respected sir:
I am involving in a program which is written by myself about using MSP430F149 to control the step motor.I would like to show them here.( this is the datasheet of MSP430F149: [^]
)And I think maybe they could be improved but I don’t know how to do it. Could you give me some suggestions?
This is the program:
<#include <msp430x14x.h>
typedef unsigned int uint;
typedef unsigned char uchar;
#define PWM BIT2
void int_clk()
{
uchar i;
BCSCTL1&=~XT2OFF; //open XT oscillator
BCSCTL2|=SELM1+SELS;//MCLK 8M and SMCLK 1M
do
{
IFG1 &= ~OFIFG; //clean the wrong sign of vibration
for(i = 0; i < 100; i++)
_NOP(); //delay waiting
}
while ((IFG1 & OFIFG) != 0); //If sign is 1,continue to wait
IFG1&=~OFIFG;
}
void int_pwm()
{
P1SEL|=PWM;//choose P12 to bePWM output
P1DIR|=PWM;
TACCR0=800;//PWM signal cycle 10KHz
TACCR1=400;//duty cycle 1：1
TACCTL1=OUTMOD0+OUTMOD1+OUTMOD2; //outputted mode choosing
TACTL|=TASSEL1+MC0;
}
void main()
{
WDTCTL=WDTPW+WDTHOLD;//close watchdog
int_clk(); //clock initialization
int_pwm(); //initialize PWM
while(1);//end>
The program is base on controlling the return of step motor by using MSP4300f149. The outputted port of PWM is P1.2 while the signal cycle is 10KHZ. The duty cycle is 1:1.
Do you have any advice about my program?
Best wishes~
|
|
|
|
|
What kind of answer do you expect?
You are mainly setting configuration registers which can't be improved.
The only code portion that can be improved is the loop in your int_clk() function. The final clearing of the OFIFG bits can be omitted because those are already cleared when the loop terminates. The inner for loop seems to be unnecessary when _NOP() does what it indicates (just do nothing while the processor runs) and there is no requirement for a delay between consecutive writes to the IFG1 register.
Then that function can be:
void int_clk()
{
BCSCTL1&=~XT2OFF;
BCSCTL2|=SELM1+SELS;
do
{
IFG1 &= ~OFIFG;
}
while ((IFG1 & OFIFG) != 0);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Purely a question to understand what you get with the product.
The ADAS 1000 Evaluation board, with the SDP controller board, can display ECG traces on the PC program (looks like LabView). But my questions is, does it come with defaults and default program to connect and display. Forget whether it's safe to connect to humans or animals, which the disclaimer warns against. I'm Just wondering how useful it is.
Does it come with defaults and the ability to display proper ECG waveforms, if electrodes connected.
|
|
|
|
|
You'd do a lot better getting an answer from the supplier than from a random bunch of coders here.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
to do Kernel mode debugging can the host computer be windows 8.1 and target windows 10
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Yes... of course. You can attach a debugger to Windows 10 from Windows 7 or greater.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good morning~
I met some troubles about interrupting when programming the PIC18F87K22. This is the datasheet of PIC18F87K22:<url=<a href="http://www.kynix.com/uploadfiles/pdf65976/PIC18F87K22-I2fPT_606726.pdf">[^]> My situations are as following :
1). When using timer 3 to produce square ware (135Hz 270Hz),it require that the high need to compare first.I don’t know how to explain it clearly...
2)The receive of series port interrupted,the data that receiving host computer sent is <fs+9999>.
3)The INO is interrupted by surface.
4) The timer5 times about 1H.
5) Sometimes the numbers will lost when receiving data.However, it can’t lost when closing other interrupt.
Can you tell me how to solve this problems ?
Thank you very much.
Have a nice day~
|
|
|
|
|
My computer shop currently has 5 developers and we all are very frustrated with the performance of our workstations. We are trying to get management to go for some top-end workstations for blazing speed when we compile our applications in Visual Studio 2010 (yes we are behind) as well as fast speed with our SQL Server. We support one huge solution that takes 12 minutes to do a Rebuild-All on an i7 M620 (2 core) with 8GB RAM. That same solution takes 4 mins 10 secs on an i5 6500 (4 core) with 8GB of RAM.
We also would like to be able to build Virtual Machines on our workstations to create sandboxes for various development and pre-implementation tasks. There are a couple of build specs we are looking at requesting. Both are similar and only differ on CPU. I would like feedback on which we should go with and get best bang for the buck and achieve our blazing fast performance requirement. I will also mention that running BitLocker full disk encryption is a mandatory company requirement. We would love to get that build time down to 1 minute or less.
Build 1:
CPU: Intel I7 6900K (8 Core)
RAM: 32 GB DDR4
Primary HD: PCIe Solid State Drive (512GB)
Secondary HD: SATA Solid State Drive (500GB)
Build 2:
CPU: Intel i7 7700K (4 Core)
RAM: 32 GB DDR4
Primary HD: PCIe Solid State Drive (512GB)
Secondary HD: SATA Solid State Drive (500GB)
Installed Applications:
Visual Studio 2010
SQL Server 2008R2
BitLocker Full Disk Encryption
VMWare (Multiple VM Machines)
Possibly will try running RAM Drive for temp file usage in Visual Studio
Any feedback on these specs would be greatly appreciated? The managers that make the hardware purchase decisions for our organization says why do you need 32 GB of RAM, that's way over kill and you don't need that powerful of CPUs either.
Do you think 32 GB is overkill like our Hardware management is saying as push back? Do you agree that the i7 6900K or the 7700K is overkill for what I described as our goals? They are really pushing for the entire organization to use one model which is a very small footprint HP EliteDesk 800 mini with the i5 6500 and 8GB RAM. So we are lumped in with everyone else who just uses their computer for emails, spreadsheets and Word. Thoughts? Would you recommend something different as a Visual Studio Developer?
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to add one thought to speeding up your machines. If you can put two SSD's in a RAID 0 configuration, that will speed things up more than you can imagine.
And you yourself have found your argument against the "32 GB is overkill" point of view: They are lumping you in with people who need only minimal specs to get their job done.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LovesCSharp wrote:
Do you think 32 GB is overkill like our Hardware management is saying as push back?
Yes. I would also ask for an argumentation of "Hardware Management", just to see if it is a pushback.
I'm currently on a i3 (laptop cpu) with 16Gb; that may sound slow, but thanks to SSD it works quite speedy. Booting in seconds, launching VS in seconds. Good enough to Warcraft
LovesCSharp wrote:
Possibly will try running RAM Drive for temp file usage in Visual Studio
Doesn't bring much additional speed, unless your HD is really slow. With Windows memory management the entire ram-disk may be pushed into virtual memory if the system needs space. It also does not speed up compiling that much.
LovesCSharp wrote: The managers that make the hardware purchase decisions for our organization says why do you need 32 GB of RAM, that's way over kill and you don't need that powerful of CPUs either.
Log the time that you are waiting for the compile to complete, and express that value in money (time * your costs). That way you have a financial argument, something that managers are sensitive to.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
