Years ago in 73, and other mags, programming an eprom for the Icom 22S
was the rage.
I now have aquired a TransWorld transceiver that is programmed with
diodes. I wish to build a BCD thumbwheel input, with an Eprom for data
translation. It's no problem building a board, but it's a problem with
me programming the eprom. I don't need anything fancy, no memory, no
scanning, just using the thumbwheels to move frequency. I've never
programmed an eprom before.

Not too many folks fiddle with EPROMS anymore. Microcontrollers with
onboard EEPROM are cheaper and easier to program, plus you get some logic
that allows you to reduce the circuit complexity thrown in for the ride. Of
course, these things grow ... with the logic, an encoder is cheaper and more
pleasant to use than the thumbwheel, but now you would like to add a display
..... and on and on. But still, I wouldn't be surprised if the micro,
encoder and display wasn't still cheaper than the EEPROM and BCD switch.

...


"Atlanta-ham" wrote in message
oups.com...
Years ago in 73, and other mags, programming an eprom for the Icom 22S
was the rage.
I now have aquired a TransWorld transceiver that is programmed with
diodes. I wish to build a BCD thumbwheel input, with an Eprom for data
translation. It's no problem building a board, but it's a problem with
me programming the eprom. I don't need anything fancy, no memory, no
scanning, just using the thumbwheels to move frequency. I've never
programmed an eprom before.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:23:37 -0400, "xpyttl"
wrote:

Not too many folks fiddle with EPROMS anymore. Microcontrollers with

Error! There are plenty of people using eproms for systems and other
uses. I keep a programmer for such a reason.

onboard EEPROM are cheaper and easier to program, plus you get some logic
that allows you to reduce the circuit complexity thrown in for the ride. Of
course, these things grow ... with the logic, an encoder is cheaper and more
pleasant to use than the thumbwheel, but now you would like to add a display
.... and on and on. But still, I wouldn't be surprised if the micro,
encoder and display wasn't still cheaper than the EEPROM and BCD switch.

A micro like a PIC would likely be a lower cost solution and you can
then uses a cheaper switch and all. A programmer really more of a
cable for a PIC can be easily built for a PC parallel port.

Allison

..


"Atlanta-ham" wrote in message
roups.com...
Years ago in 73, and other mags, programming an eprom for the Icom 22S
was the rage.
I now have aquired a TransWorld transceiver that is programmed with
diodes. I wish to build a BCD thumbwheel input, with an Eprom for data
translation. It's no problem building a board, but it's a problem with
me programming the eprom. I don't need anything fancy, no memory, no
scanning, just using the thumbwheels to move frequency. I've never
programmed an eprom before.

wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:23:37 -0400, "xpyttl"
wrote:

Not too many folks fiddle with EPROMS anymore. Microcontrollers with

Error! There are plenty of people using eproms for systems and other
uses. I keep a programmer for such a reason.

onboard EEPROM are cheaper and easier to program, plus you get some logic
that allows you to reduce the circuit complexity thrown in for the ride. Of
course, these things grow ... with the logic, an encoder is cheaper and more
pleasant to use than the thumbwheel, but now you would like to add a display
.... and on and on. But still, I wouldn't be surprised if the micro,
encoder and display wasn't still cheaper than the EEPROM and BCD switch.

A micro like a PIC would likely be a lower cost solution and you can
then uses a cheaper switch and all. A programmer really more of a
cable for a PIC can be easily built for a PC parallel port.

Allison

..


"Atlanta-ham" wrote in message
roups.com...
Years ago in 73, and other mags, programming an eprom for the Icom 22S
was the rage.
I now have aquired a TransWorld transceiver that is programmed with
diodes. I wish to build a BCD thumbwheel input, with an Eprom for data
translation. It's no problem building a board, but it's a problem with
me programming the eprom. I don't need anything fancy, no memory, no
scanning, just using the thumbwheels to move frequency. I've never
programmed an eprom before.

I've looked around at PIC circuits, and understand I could program quite easily with my computer, however, I'm not that good at programming a PIC either! There's a control head that comes with this rig, that allows me to select twenty frequencies, along with power, squelch, and other things. I can probably get a board to use the PIC with, however, I know absolutely nothing about PIC programming! Last time I used BASIC was back in the early eighties! There as a project some time ago called the "Kendra Board" I believe in either 73, or CQ, using a PIC.

"Atlanta-ham" wrote in message
ups.com...

I've looked around at PIC circuits, and understand I could program
quite easily with my computer, however, I'm not that good at
programming a PIC either!

You indicated you had no problem with the circuit. Programming a PIC is
more like designing digital logic than it is like programming in BASIC. It
may be a little weird, but it isn't the least little bit hard. Its mainly a
question of getting over the fear. And as Allison pointed, out, a parallel
port programmer is pretty simple. In fact, it's a pretty lame junk box that
doesn't already have the stuff. OK, maybe you need to buy the DB25 and the
IC socket, but the rest is just any old transistor, and a few resistors and
diodes.

...