Phil Bennett
Newbie
- Credits
- 51CR
Well done me I suppose 
Space Harrier /OutRun DX Motor OpenBoard Project
- Thread starter NaokiS
- Start date
John Bennett said:Big thanks to Mark Haysman for dumping the file a few years back.
And also a thank you to my brother, who, in about 30 seconds from me asking him to help, returned the equations for it (MAME has JEDUTIL tool)
Inputs:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Outputs:
16 (Combinatorial, Output feedback output, Active high)
17 (Combinatorial, Output feedback output, Active low)
18 (Combinatorial, Output feedback output, Active low)
19 (Combinatorial, Output feedback output, Active high)
Equations:
o16 = i1 & i4 & i13 +
i4 & /i13 +
i1 & i2 & i3 & /i13
o16.oe = vcc
/o17 = i14 +
i15
o17.oe = vcc
/o18 = /i5 & /i6 & /i7 & /i8
o18.oe = vcc
o19 = /i1 & /i2 & /i3 & /i4 & i5 & /i6 & /i7 & /i8 & i9 & i11 +
i1 & /i2 & /i3 & /i4 & /i5 & i6 & /i7 & /i8 & i9 & i11 +
/i1 & i2 & /i3 & /i4 & i5 & i6 & /i7 & /i8 & i9 & i11 +
i1 & i2 & /i3 & /i4 & /i5 & /i6 & i7 & /i8 & i9 & i11 +
/i1 & /i2 & i3 & /i4 & i5 & /i6 & i7 & /i8 & i9 & i11 +
i1 & /i2 & i3 & /i4 & /i5 & i6 & i7 & /i8 & i9 & i11 +
/i1 & i2 & i3 & /i4 & i5 & i6 & i7 & /i8 & i9 & i11 +
/i1 & i2 & i3 & /i4 & i5 & /i6 & /i7 & i8 & /i9 & i12 +
i1 & /i2 & i3 & /i4 & /i5 & i6 & /i7 & i8 & /i9 & i12 +
/i1 & /i2 & i3 & /i4 & i5 & i6 & /i7 & i8 & /i9 & i12 +
i1 & i2 & /i3 & /i4 & /i5 & /i6 & i7 & i8 & /i9 & i12 +
/i1 & i2 & /i3 & /i4 & i5 & /i6 & i7 & i8 & /i9 & i12 +
i1 & /i2 & /i3 & /i4 & /i5 & i6 & i7 & i8 & /i9 & i12 +
/i1 & /i2 & /i3 & /i4 & i5 & i6 & i7 & i8 & /i9 & i12
o19.oe = vcc
I'll have a stare at it later - at least it's not empty
Er... Makes perfect sense to me
John Bennett
Senior Member
Fortunately it actually does make sense, after a bit of thought
The counter feeding the PAL it is reset by the PAL at 7 (depending on mains sync). So you get an 0-6 count for the positive half of the mains and then another 0-6 for the negative half (the PAL is fed the mains direction on pin 9.)
The speed control then determines how many counts of the half-cycle the triac is on for. It's not actually PWM (much simpler) - the triac gets a clocked-pulse when it needs to turn on and then it turns itself off inherently at the end of the mains half-cycle.
So if it receives 15, then it gives the triac a pulse at the start of the half-cycle and the motor gets volts for the full half cycle (and goes quickly).
If it receives an 8, then the triac is turned on at the end and the motor just gets volts briefly (and goes slow).
As the circuit senses the positive or negative mains cycle, when requesting negative speed, it does the same, but only when the mains is negative. This makes the motor go backwards.
Definitely a huge help to have the PAL rather than to hang scopes off the board -saved us a lot of time.
The counter feeding the PAL it is reset by the PAL at 7 (depending on mains sync). So you get an 0-6 count for the positive half of the mains and then another 0-6 for the negative half (the PAL is fed the mains direction on pin 9.)
The speed control then determines how many counts of the half-cycle the triac is on for. It's not actually PWM (much simpler) - the triac gets a clocked-pulse when it needs to turn on and then it turns itself off inherently at the end of the mains half-cycle.
So if it receives 15, then it gives the triac a pulse at the start of the half-cycle and the motor gets volts for the full half cycle (and goes quickly).
If it receives an 8, then the triac is turned on at the end and the motor just gets volts briefly (and goes slow).
As the circuit senses the positive or negative mains cycle, when requesting negative speed, it does the same, but only when the mains is negative. This makes the motor go backwards.
Definitely a huge help to have the PAL rather than to hang scopes off the board -saved us a lot of time.
I believe this is the "CN.T"
https://www.digikey.com/products/en?mpart=172040-1&v=17
and C5/C6..
tin2018-05-22 12:42:10
https://www.digikey.com/products/en?mpart=172040-1&v=17
and C5/C6..
tin2018-05-22 12:42:10
John Bennett
Senior Member
Wow, I wasn't even going to bother looking, I thought it was so bespoke.
Fantastic.
If we can't get the exact crystal, it's worth verifying that the RC circuit will work with our replacement. Just a parts list change though.
Oh and on the subject of unfortunate PCB labels, take a look at Double Dragon...
(edited to make it slightly less blatant).John Bennett2018-05-22 12:56:40
Fantastic.
If we can't get the exact crystal, it's worth verifying that the RC circuit will work with our replacement. Just a parts list change though.
Oh and on the subject of unfortunate PCB labels, take a look at Double Dragon...
(edited to make it slightly less blatant).John Bennett2018-05-22 12:56:40
Wow I'm surprised that connector was found! Also looks like the caps are 100n which is about half of what I expected them to be.
Can we not get a 10~mhz crystal?
Edit: Seen your notes, I can find 10.245 MHz on eBay: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HC-49S-3-579-4-4-194-4-332-4-433-6-8-9-10-12-15-16-18-MHz-Crystal-Oscillator/231252425587?var=530478566111&hash=item35d7b7fb73:m:mVKEuifdP0j3M17cgPaCd9g
NaokiS2018-05-22 13:37:26
Can we not get a 10~mhz crystal?
Edit: Seen your notes, I can find 10.245 MHz on eBay: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HC-49S-3-579-4-4-194-4-332-4-433-6-8-9-10-12-15-16-18-MHz-Crystal-Oscillator/231252425587?var=530478566111&hash=item35d7b7fb73:m:mVKEuifdP0j3M17cgPaCd9g
NaokiS2018-05-22 13:37:26
Is IC1 the correct part on the project? I have the out pin as pin 15 Q10, but there's not even a Q10 on the part that's currently in the project. A lot of the pin label names are subtly different too. Is this due to needing a substitute part or something else?
I'm a real noob to this so I could easily have it wrong.
I'm a real noob to this so I could easily have it wrong.
John Bennett
Senior Member
I think it's just the borderline-unreadable original schematics.
I'm pretty sure it's Q9, just looks like a Q10 in the schematics for some reason. PCB traces show it's pin 15.
I think, even though a WIP, all the parts in our schematic should have the right pinouts and be the same as the original schematics (that's the intention anyway).
edit: Oh and the pin labels are often different - I just use what's in the library, rather than trying to match the names on the original schematic. There's no right and wrong really (even manufacturers use differing names), as long as the pin numbers the tracks go to are correct - that shouldn't ever change.John Bennett2018-05-22 14:36:13
I'm pretty sure it's Q9, just looks like a Q10 in the schematics for some reason. PCB traces show it's pin 15.
I think, even though a WIP, all the parts in our schematic should have the right pinouts and be the same as the original schematics (that's the intention anyway).
edit: Oh and the pin labels are often different - I just use what's in the library, rather than trying to match the names on the original schematic. There's no right and wrong really (even manufacturers use differing names), as long as the pin numbers the tracks go to are correct - that shouldn't ever change.John Bennett2018-05-22 14:36:13
Pinout I have for the specific chip on the board I have here says Q10 on pin 15. Could very well be wrong just sounding caution as it sounds the clocking is crucial?
https://www.datasheets360.com/pdf/-3037750509667892223
Agree with the wonderful schematic I cant figure the nomenclature on pins 10-12 but Q10 matches up and the pin numbering checks out on my board here.
<edit> actually looking again here's what I think I see in the schematic...
tin2018-05-22 14:56:17
https://www.datasheets360.com/pdf/-3037750509667892223
Agree with the wonderful schematic
I cant figure the nomenclature on pins 10-12 but Q10 matches up and the pin numbering checks out on my board here.<edit> actually looking again here's what I think I see in the schematic...
tin2018-05-22 14:56:17
John Bennett
Senior Member
https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/data-sheet/74HC_HCT4060.pdf
Confusing.
I'd go with your older part datasheet as being correct, but why are they different?...
Guess we should look up some more 4060s, as it has to work with what's available now, but we'll need it to be Q10.
I've been wrong too many times on the frequency calculations now
Honing in on the right numbers though!John Bennett2018-05-22 15:15:25
Confusing.
I'd go with your older part datasheet as being correct, but why are they different?...
Guess we should look up some more 4060s, as it has to work with what's available now, but we'll need it to be Q10.
I've been wrong too many times on the frequency calculations now
John Bennett
Senior Member
It's possibly the 'P'.
Or maybe not. Maybe it's a lucky dip?
Still, at least we can get the Q10 version from Farnell
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd74hc4060.pdf
Edit: Actually, I think it might just be notation - some devices have all the Q output pins numbered one higher than other devices.
So they may all function the same and be interchangeable (which feels more likely).
John Bennett2018-05-22 15:49:45
Or maybe not. Maybe it's a lucky dip?
Still, at least we can get the Q10 version from Farnell
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd74hc4060.pdf
Edit: Actually, I think it might just be notation - some devices have all the Q output pins numbered one higher than other devices.
So they may all function the same and be interchangeable (which feels more likely).
John Bennett2018-05-22 15:49:45
John Bennett
Senior Member
iamjimmi said:
Thanks. It's identical to the dump used the other day (a good thing!)
The 'A' looks functionally identical, but has a different code at the top and an extra line of zeros. I haven't got Mame handy to see if the utility gives a different output, but it looks like is might just be the same functions but for a slightly different device variant.
Keep going guys! Loving the effort put into this. You'll be making a lot of Sega owners happy; especially if this covers a few different machines. Well done for choosing to match the original design even if you can make a much smaller / cheaper modern replacement.
I really find this sort of recreation work fascinating; is the PCB design / layout software Mac compatible?
Does it allow you to 'run' the PCB in a simulator?
I really find this sort of recreation work fascinating; is the PCB design / layout software Mac compatible?
Does it allow you to 'run' the PCB in a simulator?
John Bennett
Senior Member
Sorry, I don't think there's an Apple version, unless Apples run Windows and are just like PCs inside (I honestly lose track these days).
You can do simulation in Circuit Maker, but I don't think you'd put the entire board through it (huge amount of mixed-domain simulation effort).
However I definitely want to simulate the mains/triac part of circuit, so I'll give it a try in Circuit Maker and if not possible, I'll have a go in some free version of Spice. I think I know how it works, but there's subtleties in the operation triac and the photothyristor that I'd like to understand (as we'll be speccing alternative photothyristors, seeing as the originals are obsolete and may have no direct equivalent, that I can see).
I had thought about putting the logic circuit into Modelsim (as I can do that quickly, from mucking on with making FPGA designs from 74LS logic blocks), but I'll probably only do that if I can't get the first prototype to work on the bench, as it's overkill
John Bennett2018-05-23 09:32:44
You can do simulation in Circuit Maker, but I don't think you'd put the entire board through it (huge amount of mixed-domain simulation effort).
However I definitely want to simulate the mains/triac part of circuit, so I'll give it a try in Circuit Maker and if not possible, I'll have a go in some free version of Spice. I think I know how it works, but there's subtleties in the operation triac and the photothyristor that I'd like to understand (as we'll be speccing alternative photothyristors, seeing as the originals are obsolete and may have no direct equivalent, that I can see).
I had thought about putting the logic circuit into Modelsim (as I can do that quickly, from mucking on with making FPGA designs from 74LS logic blocks), but I'll probably only do that if I can't get the first prototype to work on the bench, as it's overkill
John Bennett
Senior Member
Haha, I didn't mean to contradict on both counts.
Great if it does work on Macs.
There is simulation in there (well I think I've seen it, and there is in the full Altium), but it's basic, and as you say, the GALs wouldn't be there, so you'd have to find a way to implement them (and it's not probably worth it).
Great if it does work on Macs.
There is simulation in there (well I think I've seen it, and there is in the full Altium), but it's basic, and as you say, the GALs wouldn't be there, so you'd have to find a way to implement them (and it's not probably worth it).
Whoops, best to fact check before posting! Thought it was on mac but the only way is using either virtualization or bootcamp. Not natively supported.
As for the simulation, i haven't seen anything but granted ive been focused on working out how lay traces out in Altium lol
As for the simulation, i haven't seen anything but granted ive been focused on working out how lay traces out in Altium lol