RuggedCircuits:
Also note that a 1ns "pulse" implies the edges are themselves faster than the overall pulse. A good rule of thumb is no worse than 1/3+1/3+1/3, so 1/3 of the 1ns pulse is a rising edge, 1/3 of the pulse is steady high, 1/3 is a falling edge. This implies your rising/falling edges take no more than 300ps.
This is not easy.
You need to work with someone here who really knows what they're doing. This extends to the other parts of your circuit. Whatever you're doing with that 1ns pulse, you can't just assume it's going to be a perfect pretty little thing. Signal integrity throughout your proof-of-concept is going to be very important.
RuggedCircuits:
Also note that a 1ns "pulse" implies the edges are themselves faster than the overall pulse. A good rule of thumb is no worse than 1/3+1/3+1/3, so 1/3 of the 1ns pulse is a rising edge, 1/3 of the pulse is steady high, 1/3 is a falling edge. This implies your rising/falling edges take no more than 300ps.
This is not easy.
You need to work with someone here who really knows what they're doing. This extends to the other parts of your circuit. Whatever you're doing with that 1ns pulse, you can't just assume it's going to be a perfect pretty little thing. Signal integrity throughout your proof-of-concept is going to be very important.
I thought open source gave you no protection!
With open source you agree that anyone can do anything with your circuit / software. That includes make it, make money with it, sell it, just anything.
If you want some protection then open source is not the way.
Protection is only as strong as the bank roll you give to lawyers to protect it. It's like a game of poker, if a big boy comes along you will have to fold because you can't afford to put up. That applies to patents as well.
undeRGRound:
Sorry, I left out copyright protected then OS.
Lawyers are still a necessary evil ] unfortunately.
I'm not sure what you think Open Source means, but it is not a way of securing your IPR. If anything, it is the opposite: making something Open Source generally means relinquishing control over the IPR. I think this is usually done in the hope that the benefits of having people collaborate on your project outweigh the cost of revealing your technology to the competition.
The copyright/OS route is well established for this type of thing.
Not locked into ANYTHING yet, still checking it out.
My main Q right now is which Arduino to buy?
Will the RUGGEDUINO do it as well???
tia
Robert
I am looking at the ARM stuff too. I need this flexibility to fully explore
the experimental aspects of the device, and once I have that data I
can then set the parameters in a "safe" zone for the hardware.
There is no arduino you can buy at the moment to do this. The Due will probbly be able to do this but it is not out yet.
Look at the Discovery board from ST.
well I bought a RUGGEDUINO and cannot get the driver to install.
Think the board is wacked, everything seems OK until I specify the
proper driver and it refuses to recognize it... =(
Guess I need a breadboard shield and/or ribbon cables to plug into
my existing breadboard. As for sample programs, I will check that
SOON. Gonna trigger a MOSFET with a PWM.
There is no arduino you can buy at the moment to do this. The Due will probbly be able to do this but it is not out yet.
Look at the Discovery board from ST.
As was pointed out earlier the STM chips are more difficult to use but, here is the easiest solution that I have found. Maple | LeafLabs
They use a IDE that is close to the same as Arduino but, the libraries are not well established yet. If you just need fast pin action then a STM32 chip may do the trick.
In there forum, someone has made the IDE work with the discovery boards but, I have not figured out the process of doing so yet. http://forums.leaflabs.com/