Sockets for 56-pin LFCSP and/or 52-pin MQFP? 3

[mrkenneth]

I am thinking of using the Analog Devices ADuC847/ADuC848 microcontroller for a future project.
(

http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,762_0_ADUC847,00.html)

(

http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,762_0_ADUC848,00.html)

The only packages that are available with the part are 56-pin LFCSP and 52-pin MQFP.

Are any sockets available for these packages? I would need something that has protruding pins, since everything will be soldered by hand. (I will only be making one or two of these boards.) Would it be better to go without a socket?

I would appreciate any comments on the sockets and on the ADuC. I have played around with PIC16 and PIC18 microcontrollers, so hopefully I will be able to get the ADuC to work. The price seems very reasonable especially with the integrated high-resolution ADC.

Thank you in advance!

---------------------------------------------------------
Operation Radiation:

http://www.mrkenneth.com

 

[itsmoked]

mrkenneth;

Let me start by saying I have no experience with the ADuC chips and except for the funky stupid lameness of using mixed case in their part numbers, Analog Devices is first rate.

Next there are one or two companies whos only point is adapter sockets. They will charge truly shocking prices for them too!

If you have any native layout capabilities it could well be cheaper to lay out an 0.032" board to convert to your needs. While yer at it you could add stuff to the adapter that would be useful to you like any crystals, serial ports, reset, decoupling , etc. etc that the adapter company will not have. This would allow you to drop one into future designs too.

Alternatively if this part has serial debugging, Jtag, etc, just use the MQFP and solder it on by hand.

For a one-z, two-z design avoid the LFCSP like the Asian Bird Flu unless you have an assembly house in your pocket.

 

[felixc]

A QFP package can be quite easily soldered. What you need is a blade shaped solder tip, liquid flux and a good lens or a binocular to inspect. I've soldered many TQFP packages myself with no problems.

Not using a socket will give you a better noise performance.

I'm not so hot on the 8052 architecture, although it is a time-proven one, but the A/D capabilities of this part are very nice. How does the development tools look like, compared to a PIC?

 

[mrkenneth]

Thank you itsmoked and felixc for the responses!

I have had great experiences with Analog Devices and their technical support. I actually thought that the names were quite apt. AD for Analog Devices and uC for microcontroller. If you ignore the lower case u, then it spells ADC. Not sure whether Analog Devices did it intentionally or not. I guess that is another question for their technical support team.

I thought Digikey was already overpriced with their sockets... Thank you for the suggestion of soldering the IC on a separate board. I will put some of the more sensitive parts on the same board, such as sensors going to the ADC, as itsmoked suggested.

I have a WESD-51 temperature-controlled soldering station, so soldering the MQFP package should not be a problem. I was just worried about damaging the IC during testing and having to replace the IC. I have broken quite a few IC pads before during desoldering...

The development tools (Quickstart) are provided by Accutron (

http://www.accutron.com/).

The software + debugger costs $75 USD while the software + emulator costs $300 USD. However, Analog Devices provides free "samples" of the RS-232 cable for programming the microcontrollers! According to Analog Devices, the microcontrollers can be programmed directly from the UART or SPI without additional hardware. I am using this IC for the on-board ADC. It is like buying an ADC and getting a microcontroller for free.

What is the problem with the 8051 architecture? I have only programmed in MPASM for PICs. Should I learn the 8051 assembly? I am not too familiar with C...

---------------------------------------------------------
Operation Radiation:

http://www.mrkenneth.com

 

[itsmoked]

Assembly..ugh! I tossed that stuff years ago. Actually 8051 assembly is pretty clear and intuitive. Though I would never consider using assembly for anything. Life's too short! I'd use C or if you know it, Forth, but to-each-his-own.

My question is why switch from PICs if you know them? You can get A2Ds up the ying yang from them in the micros.

 

[felixc]

I did not like the code pages. But perhaps this is not there anymore, or that the compiler makes it transparent. I guess that the 8051 architecture is the only low-end micro that can be licensed. Other than that the chip as a whole is quite impressive.

If you have a heat gun for shrinkables, this heat gun can be used to remove a dead part. You can tape the other parts around to reduce the thermal shock to these. If you have a dead sound or video card, you can use it to experiment.

 

[mrkenneth]

Thank you both for the replies.

I guess my primary reason for switching is to learn to use a different microcontroller. I had wanted to try some of Atmel's offerings, but I stumbled across Analog Devices' microcontrollers, and they were too difficult to resist. I guess I also want to learn a new language. This is just a personal project, and I am still learning. Perhaps I should learn both 8051 and C? Is 8051 becoming obsolete now?

I have had some problems with Microchip because there are so many peripherals, but they all share the same pins. It looks like these 52-pin ICs from Analog has fewer functions, but they all use separate pins. For my last project with the PIC18F4550, the same pin was used for the output of SPI and the input of the USART. I think Microchip only offers integrated ADCs up to 12 bits. The ADC on the ADuC even has a PGA for 14.5-bit effective resolution with an input range of 20 mV.

Thank you for the advice of using a heat gun for removing dead parts, felixc. I will try it out when I have some spare time.

Is there a large difference between the architecture of 8051 and of MPASM?

Thanks in advance!

---------------------------------------------------------
Operation Radiation:

http://www.mrkenneth.com

 

[itsmoked]

Okay then get a C compiler for 8051 and go with your AD part(with the stewpid lower case letters).

8051's will be around for at least another 10 years.. No question.

MPASM architecture? Don't quit know what you mean by that question.

8051's usually don't have the drive that PICs are famous for. They are both The 8051 is a CISC processor and the PICs are RISC processors so there is quite a difference between them.

 

[fsmyth]

Regarding the mixed case part numbers; blame Fairchild.
They started it.

The 805x/87xx family is fine for more involved tasks.
Most of these are designed to be used with peripheral
chips, of which there is an abundance of types, vendors,
and targets. Plenty of documentation and examples available.
Been around a while. Probably not going to go away anytime
soon. Plenty of second-source parts, some clones.
CMOS versions available for most.

MPASM = Motorola's assembler. Also available for PIC's.

'smoked, I don't think I would classify an 8051 as CISC.
Unless the first 'C' stands for "crippled". Lots of missing
instructions relative to its 808x cousins. Not necessarily
a bad thing. Depends on where you want to go.
I think I would define the PIC as RRISC (really reduced
instruction set). I tend to group processors as
1) general purpose (comprehensive instruction sets)
2) embedded (may or may not have on-chip analog I/O)
3) DSP (specialized processors, purpose-driven, and
4) tiny (limited instructions, easy changes). PIC's, etc.
[You may not remember the SC/MP, 8008, or 2650, but I do].
Note that the boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred.
The 8051 fits somewhere between groups 1 and 4.

The very big difference between the chips you mentioned
(and a LOT you did not), and the 8xxx families, are the
on-board analog devices included in them (varies wildly).

<als>

 

[felixc]

Analog Devices usually keeps their chips for a while, especially the ones geared for instrumentation. If your present part is available in a lead-free package, then it will not suffer of an early end-of-life. (Some of their sensor chips have been obsoleted because of RoHS).

Don't worry about the life of the 8051 architecture. There's so much momentum behind it that you will see it for the rest of your career. (unless you're still a kid)

The 8051 architecture is an evolution from former microcontrollers, so it bears the defects of its quality: backward compatibility, or ease of transfer from the older chips. It is not ideal, but it is a safe value. The PIC architecture has a surprisingly long life too.

 

[mrkenneth]

Thank you all for the information!

I will not be require the microcontroller to do to much (except to acquire analogue signals and send them to a computer), so I think I will base my application on the Analog Devices 8052 microcontrollers (with the stewpid lower case letters ).

---------------------------------------------------------
Operation Radiation:

http://www.mrkenneth.com

 

[itsmoked]

Have at it!