At 05:05 PM 3/13/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Of course, for the utmost in simplicity, use 2 as your storage
>factor.

Your 2 is equivalent to my suggestion of 50.
360.00 * 50 = 18000

>Allows storage of values that when converted will have
>a range from +65535 to -65535. The maximum error is off by 1.
>For example, 35999 (which represents 359.99) is stored as
>17999. When converted back you get 35998. ALL ODD values
>will therefore be too small by exactly one count. Thus both
>35998 and 35999 will ultimately convert to 35998.
>
>If you can tolerate the least significant digit in the answer
>being off by 1, then this divide by 2 storage method is
>the way to go, as it is super simple to implement.

The 80 scale factor gives 60% better resolution (0.0125 vs. 0.02) and
requires a  simple 3-bit shift to put it into a form where it can be
converted to BCD or ASCII for display with 0.1 resolution.  I thought
there might be cases  where the 50 is better, though, which is why I
mentioned it. I just can't think of any at the moment. 8-(

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
9/11 United we Stand

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads