MAX7219 Helping Hand Please

[RussMartin]

Way back in the day, before I had PBP and used to do nothing but assembly work (before I knew what I was doing really) on the PIC and needed to count large numbers to display on an LCD, I'd break the bytes up into BCD, and work with them that way. I could deal with virtually any size number that way, limited only by the amount of ram on the PIC.

That's pretty much the same way I had to do it "way back in the day" . . . in 1969 on an IBM 1130 with a 2310 disk drive using a 2315 "pizza box" removable disk about 14 inches in diameter. Sadly, the LCD had yet to be invented, so the output was to an 1132 chain printer.

. . . it's obvious to me that, while you might know how to make larger numbers out of a bunch of smaller numbers, didn't get what I was getting at the most basic . . .

An exercise in making larger numbers out of much smaller numbers was in June and July, 1967, when I was calculating the values, determining the periods ("rings"), and counting the digit distributions in repeating decimal fractions of the form 1/(10x-1) on a Philco 2000. For x=1, 1/9 is easy, 0.1111 . . . But for x=2, 1/19, the fraction is 0.052631578947368421 before it repeats, beginning again with "0526 . . . " (18-digit period or "ring") and going on, forever repeating. For x=3, 1/29, the procedure is the same, and so on. The objective was to create an algorithm for generating random numbers.

The actual math is all whole numbers, no fractions, and . . . well, I'll let skimask explain how to do it.

If a person takes that example in the negative fashion, then just maybe that person hasn't learned as much as they thought they have.

I have in fact learned as much as I think I have . . . but I haven't learned nearly as much as I want to know!

[skimask]

That's pretty much the same way I had to do it "way back in the day" . . . in 1969 on an IBM 1130 with a 2310 disk drive using a 2315 "pizza box" removable disk about 14 inches in diameter. Sadly, the LCD had yet to be invented, so the output was to an 1132 chain printer.

OUCH! Ok, I never had to go thru that (a few years ahead of my time), but I can about imagine. My very very first MCU/CPU type project back in '80, was a Z80 (+1K ram, handful of LEDs, a few HEX switches and pushbuttons, and debouncing for the 'program' switches), programming the code into the RAM with the switches to blink a single LED. Took me 6 hours to program it, a simple loop with a delay, and it actually worked the first time. Got damn lucky. Gave up after that 'cause the school got Apple II+'s.
You didn't even have a 'nixie tube' (sp?) for display or what?

An exercise in making larger numbers out of much smaller numbers....

My OBD project has me going out to 15 decimals, not because I have, but because I can. Absolutely no need for it except for error stack up over time.
On a side note, that paragraph just gave me a bit of an idea to help me better randomize more numbers in another project I've got going.

I have in fact learned as much as I think I have . . . but I haven't learned nearly as much as I want to know!

Ok, fair enough... The point being, from this end, was basically, the same as it always is (or at least it always seems to be when somebody has a problem)
Break it (whatever IT is) down, wayyyy down, and build it back up.

[RussMartin]

skimask, sometimes we seem to hijack threads even when we don't intend to.

So how about taking our discussions, disputations, sparring, polysyllabic profundity, rodomontade, thrasonical bombast, and occasional psittaceous vacuity (or even simple one-upsmanship) to "Off Topic"?

Our new thread there should be S&M . . . for skimask and Martin, of course! (Let others read into it what they will . . . )

That way, we can both avoid the embarrassment of contributing to "thread bloat" that doesn't help the original poster, or, as bad or worse, leading the thread into the "Confusion Zone" that Darrel mentioned elsewhere.

I'm willing if you are . . .

Meanwhile, let's both be truly helpful.

[skimask]

skimask, sometimes we seem to hijack threads even when we don't intend to.
So how about taking our discussions, disputations, sparring, polysyllabic profundity, rodomontade, thrasonical bombast, and occasional psittaceous vacuity (or even simple one-upsmanship) to "Off Topic"?
Our new thread there should be S&M . . . for skimask and Martin, of course! (Let others read into it what they will . . . )
That way, we can both avoid the embarrassment of contributing to "thread bloat" that doesn't help the original poster, or, as bad or worse, leading the thread into the "Confusion Zone" that Darrel mentioned elsewhere.
I'm willing if you are . . .
Meanwhile, let's both be truly helpful.

Of course...what a great idea...
http://www.picbasic.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6379

[isaac]

Hi Guys
Please no puching in my name
You guys are all helping to us whom want to learn
the actual problem was not actually how to split the number up but have to write the write it to the Max7219

No Fighting
Isaac

[CuriousOne]

I'm facing almost same problem, but a bit different, I'm also using the same code, but I'd like to:

1. Light two decimal points at same time, while maintaining decode mode on?
2. Enable free mode, when I can light up arbitrary segments, but only for part of display? say I have 4 digit 7 segment display, I want two leftmost chars to display "AC" and remaining two chars to work in decode mode?

[CuriousOne]

Almost half an year passed.....