Custom Component

Tip / Sign in to post questions, reply, level up, and achieve exciting badges. Know more

cross mob
Anonymous
Not applicable

Hi,

   

I am thinking about moving my design for an Amateur Radio device from the current PSoC 3 to the PSoC 5.  Since the PSoC 5 has greater memory capacity and such,  I wanted to get the communities option if creating a custom component is feasible.  The device (a transceiver) current uses a DUAL 1-OF-4 FET MULTIPLEXER/DEMULTIPLEXER (SN74cbt3253).  It is simply bunch of AND and Inverter gates.

   

The over all goal is too reduce the number of outboard components as possible. 

   

 

   

Just kicking around ideas.

   

Regards,

   

Ron

0 Likes
9 Replies
odissey1
Level 9
Level 9
First comment on KBA 1000 replies posted 750 replies posted
        Ron, The evil is in the details. Assuming it is used as an analog commutator ( quadrature decoder) issue could be a switch time, which for PSoC5 analog mux is in some ~1us range. Another issue is Ron, which is ~1K for PSoC, apart from 5 oHm in this part.   
0 Likes
Bob_Marlowe
Level 10
Level 10
First like given 50 questions asked 10 questions asked

PSoC3 and PSoC5 internal hardware capabilities are quite the same. I have often changed the target device of a project with only very rare problems. So when your project runs on a PSoC3 you will probably get it running on a PSoC5. Just get hands on a CY8CKIT-059, that's the cheapest way for you to test that.

   

 

   

Bob

0 Likes
Anonymous
Not applicable

Thanks for the comments.

   

odissey1: Yes, the outboard component it is being used as quadrature decoder/encoder. I don't understand the "~1K for PSoC, apart from 5 oHm in this part".  I will need to research the switching time of the outboard component verses the PSoC 5, for sure.

   

Bob: Perhaps just a bit of misunderstanding.  The current device uses outboard components for the quadrature decoding.  The goal is to redesign the device using a PSoC 5 and potentially replace a number of the outboard components with PSoC 5 components. But at any rate, yes, I will most definitely purchase a development kit.

   

Regards,

   

Ron

0 Likes
odissey1
Level 9
Level 9
First comment on KBA 1000 replies posted 750 replies posted
        Ron, Internal resistance for traces in PSoC are 500~800 ohm by the time it reaches MUX, and then another 500~800 if you need to bring signal out. Plus PCB and PSoC capacitance, so analog trace bandwidth is typically ~1MHz.   
0 Likes
Anonymous
Not applicable

Hum, bummer.  I will look into the PSoC op amps available.  Maybe I can replace the outboard ops amps with PSoC op amps.  If that is not the case, then there is not much use in switching to the PSoC 5 (from the 3) (other than life cycle support).

   

Thanks !

   

Ron

0 Likes
odissey1
Level 9
Level 9
First comment on KBA 1000 replies posted 750 replies posted
        Ron, There should be some workarounds, I've seen a shortwave scanner (1~18MHz) based on PSoC5. Also check this threads http://www.cypress.com/forum/psoc-3-device-programming/psoc-3-software-defined-radio-transceiver http://www.element14.com/community/mobile/mobile-access.jspa#jive-content?content=%2Fapi%2Fcore%2Fv3...   
0 Likes
Anonymous
Not applicable

The first link refers to the radio I am referring to.  I have taken up production of the radio where David left off.  The re-introduced Peaberry V2 named Omnia SDR Basic should be available by the end of November.  It is pretty much the same as the original Peaberry V2.  As mentioned, the reason for this post is to explore the possibilities available with the PSoC 5 in moving forward with new and improved designs for the radio.

   

Regards,

   

Ron

0 Likes
Bob_Marlowe
Level 10
Level 10
First like given 50 questions asked 10 questions asked

Putting it to the point: PSoC3 and 5 have got identical components. Full Stop.

   

The µP core is quite different, allowing faster program execution on the PSoC5, and using some programming techniques (arrays of pointers to functions) without taking precautions.

   

 

   

Bob

0 Likes
Anonymous
Not applicable

Hi Bob,

   

Point taken. 

   

Thanks,

   

Ron

0 Likes