Discussion in 'Electronic Projects Design/Ideas/Reviews' started by Mr RB, Jun 9, 2011.

1. ### KamalSNew Member

Joined:
Jun 24, 2006
Messages:
51
Likes:
0
Location:
Orange, CA
I use Excel 2010 at work and it seems to have a much more accurate maths engine than the version you are using. Hence, I have significant deviation after the first decimal point of the table entry and it goes all downhill from there.

This is the reason why I told you I will be coding the tables up in Python (I for one do not have Excel at home) as that is much more portable.

I rarely use Excel too for my computation needs, but I am wondering how you got the last 'Int' column.

If you mapped using INT(), you should be able to project a bar chart on this column and have it use the integer instead of the floats.

I will share the Python code with you and this forums soon but I also had some more questions:

1. Are the formulae compatible to have the step size changed from 50 to something else like 64?

2. Why are you scaling the output for a peak-to-peak amplitude of 72?

3. What is that 200 value?

2. ### Mr RBWell-Known Member

Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
Messages:
4,716
Likes:
194
Location:
Out there
Do you have an example? It's hard to believe my old version Excel would do such simple math calcs "wrong". I deliberately kept it to the simplest math possible, multiply abnd divides apart from what was necessary to get the sin() working.

Thank you! That should get it to display the data in integer. I'll try that later, like I said I don't use Excel much I would use it probably less than an hour a year.

It still annoys me that I tell it to "format" the column to integer (no dec point) and then I tell it to "chart" that same column it displays the original float data. Microsoft logic bah!

Yep I thought that was pretty obvious, just change the /50 in this cell to /64;
C7 Degrees sine degrees = C6 + (360 / 50)

To avoid hardware issues with using very small PWM values, amplitude 72 allows a min PWM of 14% and max pwm of 100-14%. Amplitude 72 provided a decent tradeoff of enough resolution and signal amplitude while avoiding extreme PWM ratios.

I assume you mean here;
F7 Comp adds PWM compensation= E7 + (((E7+E8)/200) * (E8-E7))
It is adding a small value in interpolation between the table values for E7 and E8, so it's really /2 (to get the average of E7 and E8) and /100 to get it normalised to PWM percentage points. I used /200 thinking it was inherently obvious, sorry about that.

You seem to be getting right into this, what was your goal again? From your earlier posts I thought you were aiming to build a 20kHz sinewave generator or something?

(edit) Actually, are you sure that INT() will do the job? Won't that just round each number DOWN to the integer? Maybe that's why your Excel is giving the wrong numbers after rounding?

Last edited: Jul 17, 2011
3. ### KamalSNew Member

Joined:
Jun 24, 2006
Messages:
51
Likes:
0
Location:
Orange, CA
Your Excel sheet seems to be weird. Consider these values that you shared (I left out some 3 columns towards the end)

Code (text):

-------------------------------------
Step    Degrees Sine value      Table
4   28.8    0.481753674 67.4
6   43.2    0.684547106 74.7
13  93.6    0.998026728 86.0
14  100.8   0.982287251 85.5
33  237.6   -0.844327926    19.5
35  252 -0.951056516    15.7
36  259.2   -0.982287251    14.5

The formula you use to calculate 'Table' from 'Sine value' is:

Code (text):

=(72 / 2) + (<Sine value> * (72 / 2)) + 14

Plugging in the 'Sine value' for each of the above we get:

Code (text):

=(72 / 2) + (0.481753674 * (72 / 2)) + 14 = 67.343132264
=(72 / 2) + (0.684547106 * (72 / 2)) + 14 = 74.643695816
=(72 / 2) + (0.998026728 * (72 / 2)) + 14 = 85.928962208
=(72 / 2) + (0.982287251 * (72 / 2)) + 14 = 85.362341036
=(72 / 2) + (-0.844327926 * (72 / 2)) + 14 = 19.604194664
=(72 / 2) + (-0.951056516 * (72 / 2)) + 14 = 15.761965424
=(72 / 2) + (-0.982287251 * (72 / 2)) + 14 = 14.637658964

Do you see what I mean?

Compare the last column values of the table I quoted with each value above.

Whatever rounding scheme your Excel uses is wildly erratic across rows:

67.343132264 can be changed to 67.4 if a ceiling function is used.
85.362341036 can be changed to 85.5 only if something is horribly wrong
15.761965424 can be changed to 15.7 if a floor or truncating function is used.
14.637658964 can be changed to 14.5 only if something is horribly wrong

This does not make sense at all if you are using the same rounding mechanism down a column.

I would steer away from formatting the display of cells while exchanging data sets

It makes it easy to view for personal use, but getting different versions of excel to reproduce the same value could be an issue I would like to stay away from!

I would like to understand this a bit better - is this your experience speaking?

Is there some documentation I can read to come to a similar conclusion?

Correct.

I was thinking of a DDS based design, but that would keep the CPU pretty busy unless I used an external DDS module.

Since most PICs I use have an independent PWM module, using the PWM for DAC is a good way to free some CPU letting me do some computation.

I appreciate the time you are putting into this.

Joined:
Jan 12, 1997
Messages:
-
Likes:
0

5. ### Mr RBWell-Known Member

Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
Messages:
4,716
Likes:
194
Location:
Out there

Interesting! I'm not sure what mechanism Microsoft used for rounding the data, I just clicked the whole column and told it "number format, 1 decimal place". I'll check later as the Excel thing went through many variations during the project and there may have been something left over from my earlier work that affected those numbers.

Either way I'm really not stressed about the 0.1 digit rounding as the base resolution of the whole system is to the integer digit anyway. Anything within about half an integer digit is good enough and will be largely removed by the hardware filter.

That's a good point! My earlier version used manual compensation for the digit rounding, then I found Excel interfered with that was was messing up my nice manual rounding so took the manual rounding out. If I had more experience with Excel or a version newer that 1996(!) maybe it would work better.

Yes, and I am sure there would be some documentation somewhere. I thought this was one of the basics of PWM... The PWM resolution is 200nS which is a very short period. If the output hardware has some characteristic of inductance or non symmetrical rise/fall times or some delay of rise or fall times this can cause issues with very short PWM pulses. This could cause a potential "clipping" of the top or bottom or both of the generated signal.

It may not be strictly necessary in this particular design but I thought it best to centre the sine waveform around the 50% PWM mark and avoid extreme PWM values, and had enough amplitude at 72% to achieve the objective. Good design is usually about trade-offs, not about specifics.

If you really want a 20kHz sine then as I said before PWM seems a much worse option than using a simple DAC, like an R2R ladder or cheap parallel input DAC IC.

PWM just won't give the desired resolution at the high frequencies and to get a good sine will require some tuning of the filter to the specific frequency. If you used a DAC output speed increases many times over and filtering becomes much less critical.

Good luck with it but I still think you are choosing a hard way to do that task when there are easier ways!

6. ### KamalSNew Member

Joined:
Jun 24, 2006
Messages:
51
Likes:
0
Location:
Orange, CA
Thank you. If you could, you can also send me the original dataset as a CVS file or a text file as well.

Best would be, of course, if you could PM me your Excel 97 sheet

Do you suggest that I use a DDS based design anyways?

You know that would keep the CPU pretty busy mapping the phase to word output and the uC would have very little resources to do anything else.

However, if you still think that is a pretty good idea - let me ask you this: Why not use something like the AD5933 to make a LC meter? (I have a few reasons, but will share later)

7. ### Mr RBWell-Known Member

Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
Messages:
4,716
Likes:
194
Location:
Out there
I think your goal of a microcontroller based function generator is quite far from this project and has a whole different set of requirements and problems...

Really the best thing would be to start a thread saying what you want to make, with all the details and specs etc and let people suggest options of the best way to go about it. It may well be that the best option is to use a micro controlling a dedicated DDS chip, provided you don't mind the cost and construction difficulties and the fixed resolution. Personally I would probably try doing in all inside the PIC chip, because I like single chip cleanliness for hobby projects even if it's not always the easiest or best way.

My opinion is STILL that for a decent function generator to 20kHz, PWM is not the way to go, and then most of this thread is not of much use to you.

Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
8. ### KamalSNew Member

Joined:
Jun 24, 2006
Messages:
51
Likes:
0
Location:
Orange, CA
I wanted to give this a try, but before that had a few questions:

1. I would like to see how increasing the number of samples (MrRB currently uses 50, and I am thinking of using 128 or more) would affect the THD

What changes would I need to make to the .asc file to review the different in performance?

2. I would like to see how increasing the resistance in the RC filter change the peak-to-peak output from the PIC pin.

What changes would I need to make to the .asc file to view the outcome?

MrAl - Thanks again for sharing.

Last edited: Aug 9, 2011