| ??? 04/19/11 13:49 Read: times |
#181953 - not necessarily because of AT89 Responding to: ???'s previous message |
My conclusion is based only by experience. Without buffer it sometimes worked erratically and unreliable.
not necessarily because of AT89. I am not a fan of Arghmel, but, in this case, I'll defend them. The derivatives with traditional ports do not communicate very well over any distance (my rule of thumb: if off board buffer, if on board no need) it can be alleviated some by adding pullup resistors, but will still be questionable for any distance. Here is another reason for using a modern derivative, most modern derivatives have ports that can be configured as push-pull. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| AT89c55 Connection with ULN2803/4 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| There is a FAQ for that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| MAX1232 + some NORs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| #181903 - AT89c55 Connection with ULN2803/4 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| '595 Chip /OE | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pull-downs... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 89C55 connection with 2803 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why is Atmel different? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why 89CXX is different | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Advice not understood | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You didn't answer the question! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Answer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not necessarily because of AT89 | 01/01/70 00:00 |