KPierson

iTrader: (1)

I would be open to that. I just need to know what needs to be done.

I can supply preprogrammed chips without any problems.

Acree

iTrader: (29)

Awesome. I would definitely be interested in that. I WOULD make it with my own chips, but it took me forever and a day to get the code written for my turn signals. I haven't even begun to mess with input signal coding.

-Acree

SpinOut123

Why would you need to write code for your turn signals if you don't mind me asking.

KPierson

iTrader: (1)

Like I said, just let me know what you want it to do and I can have it done in a few hours and send you some samples for you to test.

Acree

iTrader: (29)

Instead of making a complex circuit made with output drivers and 555 timers and SCRs, I can program a chip to do everything I want it to. It simplifies the circuit board, and it gives me infinite control over the signals. If I want to, now I could just change a few lines of code and make the signals come on the opposite direction. Or, I could make 3 sections come on at a time. (If you didn't know, I've made my own sequential led turn signals. But you're right, you don't need code for one bulb )


Actually I need code examples. I would like to use my own chips. I am using Microchips PIC controllers. I am assuming the coding is different. Can you pm me just a sample input/output code? Something that would take in an input to open the door from say, starting the car. Then another input from the button. It would need to remember what it's current state is, even while off. So if you have the door open while the car is running, it would automatically shut when you turn the car off, and then remember to open again when the car starts again. Or, if you have the door shut, it would remain closed when you kill the car, and then remember to stay closed the next time the car is turned on. Then when the button is pressed, it would simply change the current state of the door from being closed to open or open to closed.

-Acree

KPierson

iTrader: (1)

KPtechnologies exclusively uses Atmel microcontrollers. The coding will be similar, but different.

If you want to 'remember' the state you can go about it in two ways, using EEProm memory or power the chip up at all times.

As far as inputs go, with the Atmel chips your inputs are set up on 8 bit ports. You can check each individual bit independently and skip instructions based on the state. Basically, if the ignition is on branch to 'check if door should be open' routine, if it is off jump to other routine. I have no experiance with PICs so I'm not sure if that's how they do inputs.

SpinOut123

I got a little lazy in my code and wiring. I wired the door through the connector of the ciggy lighter and told it to just open the door as soon as its powered up. Later, when I rewire my whole carputer, I will make it also close when the ign is killed.

But you do need an output driver (can't drive the motor from port pins, too much current), Relays (to switch the direction of the motor and to enable it) and a nand chip (to invert port pins because they are usually high on startup and will probably drive an output relay undesirably). You wouldn't need to power the circuit at all times if you have some kind of flash memory.

I lucked out on building the circuit. I just used one of my old prototypes from work and just added a few wires.

If you guys need suggestions, I'd be glad to help but I'm not gonna give up my code and hardware design.

minispider

iTrader: (9)

so...can I buy a circuit?

deviljon

iTrader: (50)

i'd be interested in buying a motorized cubby door for my 06

KPierson

iTrader: (1)

My planned prototype had a uC, three transistors, 2 relays, and supporting resistors and diodes.

One transistor to monitor ignition power, and two transistors to drive relays to go open and closed. The relays would be SPDT, low current relays (1A or so, but testing would have to be done to verify this).

I don't think you have to worry about the inverter, even if the uC does start up in an undesirable state it will only stay there until the chip is through its initialization which should take less then 0.01 seconds, which wouldn't be long enough to actually fire the relay.

Add to this the necesarry power supply components and some code and that would be it.

Acree

iTrader: (29)

KP - That's about what I have planned. I'm currently up the without a paddle. My programmer bit the dust and it's taken me a week to get microchips to send me a new one. It should be here tomorrow. And on top of that, my computer crashed and I lost all the code to my turn signals, and the code I was working on for the nav door. F*ck! So I will hopefully have this thing back in a couple of weeks.

My design was heading towards something like what you described. I wouldn't need the inverter since the chip I use can be driven low or high. But I'm curious, how would your first transistor "monitor" the ignition power?

-Acree

KPierson

iTrader: (1)

You would run constant power and ground to the chip, so that it is always powered. You would then want to know when the ignition is on, so that you can open and close the door accordingly. The ignition is a 12vdc signal, the chip is a 5vdc device. The transistor would be used to interface the different 'logic' levels.

SpinOut123

Sorry, don't think I'd be selling the chip because I used some old hardware I had laying around at work. I would have to do a new board layout, have the boards made and populated. This would get expensive real quick. Plus, the life of electronics in the automotive environment is relatively short and would hate to have a bunch of people upset at me over broken chips after a few months.

Yes, the Relays do use very little current (much less than 1A for both DPDT (1 could have been SPST) relays, the motor and the circuit).

The code is very basic. Any 1st year programmer could write it as long as they knew how to declare the proper port pins in the code. Its all "if then" and "if else" statements.

Acree

iTrader: (29)

I think I'm going to try and tackle this thing. Thanks for the info guys.

-Acree

bb1314

iTrader: (62)

Any news on this?