At 09:41 AM 1/8/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> >Lancaster's magic sine waves aren't magic and they aren't Lancaster's,
>but
>he has publicised them well enough that he deserves some mileage from the
>concept.
>
>Yeah, "Magic" is an unfortunate word that Lancaster used to popularize the
>concept.  What blew my mind was the mathematical elegance of the concept.
>Generally if I see something touted as "magic" I hit the delete button
>fast because it is almost always a scam.
>
>Lancaster may not have invented much, but he has sure produced volumes of
>clear, concise, readable docs on all subjects electronic.  Lancaster,
>Ciarcia, and a few other authors are way up there on my list.

Agree. He (and others such as Bob Pease) may be going a bit to seed
these days, but they have done a lot for the hobby, and contributed to the
industry as well.

>My feeling is that the "Magic sine wave" concept is way to complex for
>this appliaction.  But hey, it is just software, it could be part of
>Release II.

If the number of additional edges is small (as suggested), and the
tightest ones are reasonably spaced, it's not that much to do- just
work out a table with the values and step through it on each CCP
interrupt. The overall frequency accuracy remains just as high as
the square wave numbers which we've already worked out. There will
some degradation of the harmonic reduction from the granularity of
the edge timing, but that's no big deal for reasonable numbers.

This is a REALLY easy case- the frequency is low and fixed, and
the amplitude is fixed.

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

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics