Hello Mark,
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhennessy
I can, of course, change the code for you,... If you worry that the counter will exceed 999 on a single tape, we need to reduce the count rate, not remove the code for the 4th digit.
|
I hadn't considered doing that. If the count rate was changed, then the count wouldn't match the mechanical counter. Perhaps the condition about which I was concerned won't actually happen.
Quote:
|
You decide the count rate, based on the number of "slots" on your spinning disc. I can, of course, divide the count down for you if required...
|
No, the encoder will produce 4 pulses per 2 revolutions of the shaft, that equals an increment of 1 on the mechanical counter, so, as previously mentioned, the encoder o/p needs to be divided by 4, so that 2 revolutions gives an increment of 1 on the electronic counter.
Quote:
|
It's a shame you don't have the old counter,...
|
But I
do still have the old counter! Whatever made you think that I didn't? I never actually said that I didn't, I only said that it was broken.
Quote:
|
...because you'd be able to see if it "overflowed" with a full spool.
|
I never had a tape, even a 4500 feet one, exceed the maximum count of 999. And I realise that I've just demolished my argument about the 4th digit!
I think I was thinking about the B77, I haven't run that long enough to see if the maximum count could be exceeded, though I'm beginning to doubt it.
Quote:
|
As it is, although you might know the rotational speed of the reel table, do you know how that correlated to count rate with the original counter?
|
Yes, I wouldn't have been able to give the count increment per revolution of the shaft if I didn't!
Why not pretend that I never mentioned it and leave things as they are?
Sorry for the drama!
Regards,
Dave.