Generated frequency is not as expected
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This code sets a pin HIGH for 1 microsecond and then LOW for 1 microsecond. The expected frequency should be about 500 kHz. When measuring the output the frequency is about 96.4khz. Why ?
int del = 1;
void setup() {
// put your setup code here, to run once:
pinMode(3, OUTPUT);
}
void loop() {
// put your main code here, to run repeatedly:
digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(del);
digitalWrite(3, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(del);
}
arduino-leonardo frequency
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This code sets a pin HIGH for 1 microsecond and then LOW for 1 microsecond. The expected frequency should be about 500 kHz. When measuring the output the frequency is about 96.4khz. Why ?
int del = 1;
void setup() {
// put your setup code here, to run once:
pinMode(3, OUTPUT);
}
void loop() {
// put your main code here, to run repeatedly:
digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(del);
digitalWrite(3, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(del);
}
arduino-leonardo frequency
New contributor
Your code says 1 microsecond, butdelayMicroseconds
is actually much slower than that. Also theloop
has some overhead. Try putting the code insidewhile(true){ }
. Recent versions of the Arduino IDE have got better at making code faster, but if you want timing accuracy it is better to use low-level timer/counters of the AVR.
– MichaelT
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This code sets a pin HIGH for 1 microsecond and then LOW for 1 microsecond. The expected frequency should be about 500 kHz. When measuring the output the frequency is about 96.4khz. Why ?
int del = 1;
void setup() {
// put your setup code here, to run once:
pinMode(3, OUTPUT);
}
void loop() {
// put your main code here, to run repeatedly:
digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(del);
digitalWrite(3, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(del);
}
arduino-leonardo frequency
New contributor
This code sets a pin HIGH for 1 microsecond and then LOW for 1 microsecond. The expected frequency should be about 500 kHz. When measuring the output the frequency is about 96.4khz. Why ?
int del = 1;
void setup() {
// put your setup code here, to run once:
pinMode(3, OUTPUT);
}
void loop() {
// put your main code here, to run repeatedly:
digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(del);
digitalWrite(3, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(del);
}
arduino-leonardo frequency
arduino-leonardo frequency
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Michel Keijzers
6,16341736
6,16341736
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
deadpixel
61
61
New contributor
New contributor
Your code says 1 microsecond, butdelayMicroseconds
is actually much slower than that. Also theloop
has some overhead. Try putting the code insidewhile(true){ }
. Recent versions of the Arduino IDE have got better at making code faster, but if you want timing accuracy it is better to use low-level timer/counters of the AVR.
– MichaelT
2 days ago
add a comment |
Your code says 1 microsecond, butdelayMicroseconds
is actually much slower than that. Also theloop
has some overhead. Try putting the code insidewhile(true){ }
. Recent versions of the Arduino IDE have got better at making code faster, but if you want timing accuracy it is better to use low-level timer/counters of the AVR.
– MichaelT
2 days ago
Your code says 1 microsecond, but
delayMicroseconds
is actually much slower than that. Also the loop
has some overhead. Try putting the code inside while(true){ }
. Recent versions of the Arduino IDE have got better at making code faster, but if you want timing accuracy it is better to use low-level timer/counters of the AVR.– MichaelT
2 days ago
Your code says 1 microsecond, but
delayMicroseconds
is actually much slower than that. Also the loop
has some overhead. Try putting the code inside while(true){ }
. Recent versions of the Arduino IDE have got better at making code faster, but if you want timing accuracy it is better to use low-level timer/counters of the AVR.– MichaelT
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Welcome to SE.
digitalWrite()
takes a few microseconds to execute as well. There is also some overhead around the delayMicroseconds()
function.
I you need exactly 500 kHz, you would want to consider using a timer.
You can read up on how to set one up in the microcontrollers datasheet.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to an Arduino Leonardo, but here is an example code for the ATmega328P. The register names will be different, but you should be able to adapt the code to fit your Arduino.
// 500 kHz frequency
void setup() {
cli(); //Disable interrupt during setup
TCCR2A = 0;
TCCR2B = 0;
TCCR2B |= (1 << CS20); //Enable timer without prescaler
OCR2A = 15; //Do interrupt TIMER2_COMPA after reaching this counter value
TIMSK2 |= (1 << 1); //Enable TIMER2_COMPA interrupt
DDRD |= (1 << PORTD3); //Set Digital Pin 3 as Output Pin
sei(); //Enable interrupts again
}
ISR(TIMER2_COMPA_vect) { //If the counter has reached the point where the output needs to be low
TCNT2 = 0;
PIND |= (1 << PORTD3); //Toggle Digital Pin 3
}
void loop() {
//your looping code here
}
Explanation:
TIMER2
is an 8-bit timer, which means it will always count from 0 to 255, regardless of what the CPU is doing.
Normally, it counts up at the Arduino's clock frequency, like 16 MHz.
When the counter hits 15, a special code is immediately executed, called an "Interrupt Service Routine". In this code, we reset the timer and change the state of your outpin pin, resulting in a 500 kHz square wave on that pin.
We count to 15 since there are 16 steps in between "0" where the counter begins and 15, where we reset it.
16'000'000 Hz / 1 (no prescaler) / 16 (counter) / 2 = 500 kHz
The divisor of 2 comes from the fact that we need to change the pin state twice for every full square of the output signal.
2
Sometimes you write 500kHz, then you write 500Hz. As calculated the code is for 500Hz. As the OP asked for 500kHz, the prescaler could be set to 1 and the compare value (at which the timer fires the interrupt) to 16. In my calculation this gives you exactly 500kHz. Am I right?
– chrisl
2 days ago
But as you wrote,digitalWrite()
takes to long, so bit manipulation on the port registers are the right way to go: arduino.cc/en/Reference/PortManipulation
– chrisl
2 days ago
Yes, of course, I'm so sorry. This is what happens when you recycle code after a long work day. I'll fix it. And you're also right, digitalRead and -Write are too slow for 500 kHz, I'll implement it via the registers.
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
1
You could use one of the hardware time outputs like OC2A or OCRB and avoid the ISR/digitalWrite/bitbanging overhead entirely.
– Dave X
2 days ago
It's fixed now - so sorry again. My scope isn't fast enough for 500 kHz, but it works as intended for 50 kHz. The "standard" outputs are nice, but you're then limited to the two pins per timer. Is that already necessary at 500 kHz?
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
delayMicroseconds() has a minimum lower value of 3-4 us per the IDE documentation. It won't do 1.
loop() also adds some delay mechanisms doing it's background stuff.
You will see better results with a while() :
loop(){
while (1){
digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(del);
digitalWrite(3, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(del);
}
}
with direct port manipulation in place of the digital writes.
There will also be jitter from the millis() background time keeping, if you want a smoother signal it will be best to turn off interrupts as well.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Welcome to SE.
digitalWrite()
takes a few microseconds to execute as well. There is also some overhead around the delayMicroseconds()
function.
I you need exactly 500 kHz, you would want to consider using a timer.
You can read up on how to set one up in the microcontrollers datasheet.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to an Arduino Leonardo, but here is an example code for the ATmega328P. The register names will be different, but you should be able to adapt the code to fit your Arduino.
// 500 kHz frequency
void setup() {
cli(); //Disable interrupt during setup
TCCR2A = 0;
TCCR2B = 0;
TCCR2B |= (1 << CS20); //Enable timer without prescaler
OCR2A = 15; //Do interrupt TIMER2_COMPA after reaching this counter value
TIMSK2 |= (1 << 1); //Enable TIMER2_COMPA interrupt
DDRD |= (1 << PORTD3); //Set Digital Pin 3 as Output Pin
sei(); //Enable interrupts again
}
ISR(TIMER2_COMPA_vect) { //If the counter has reached the point where the output needs to be low
TCNT2 = 0;
PIND |= (1 << PORTD3); //Toggle Digital Pin 3
}
void loop() {
//your looping code here
}
Explanation:
TIMER2
is an 8-bit timer, which means it will always count from 0 to 255, regardless of what the CPU is doing.
Normally, it counts up at the Arduino's clock frequency, like 16 MHz.
When the counter hits 15, a special code is immediately executed, called an "Interrupt Service Routine". In this code, we reset the timer and change the state of your outpin pin, resulting in a 500 kHz square wave on that pin.
We count to 15 since there are 16 steps in between "0" where the counter begins and 15, where we reset it.
16'000'000 Hz / 1 (no prescaler) / 16 (counter) / 2 = 500 kHz
The divisor of 2 comes from the fact that we need to change the pin state twice for every full square of the output signal.
2
Sometimes you write 500kHz, then you write 500Hz. As calculated the code is for 500Hz. As the OP asked for 500kHz, the prescaler could be set to 1 and the compare value (at which the timer fires the interrupt) to 16. In my calculation this gives you exactly 500kHz. Am I right?
– chrisl
2 days ago
But as you wrote,digitalWrite()
takes to long, so bit manipulation on the port registers are the right way to go: arduino.cc/en/Reference/PortManipulation
– chrisl
2 days ago
Yes, of course, I'm so sorry. This is what happens when you recycle code after a long work day. I'll fix it. And you're also right, digitalRead and -Write are too slow for 500 kHz, I'll implement it via the registers.
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
1
You could use one of the hardware time outputs like OC2A or OCRB and avoid the ISR/digitalWrite/bitbanging overhead entirely.
– Dave X
2 days ago
It's fixed now - so sorry again. My scope isn't fast enough for 500 kHz, but it works as intended for 50 kHz. The "standard" outputs are nice, but you're then limited to the two pins per timer. Is that already necessary at 500 kHz?
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
Welcome to SE.
digitalWrite()
takes a few microseconds to execute as well. There is also some overhead around the delayMicroseconds()
function.
I you need exactly 500 kHz, you would want to consider using a timer.
You can read up on how to set one up in the microcontrollers datasheet.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to an Arduino Leonardo, but here is an example code for the ATmega328P. The register names will be different, but you should be able to adapt the code to fit your Arduino.
// 500 kHz frequency
void setup() {
cli(); //Disable interrupt during setup
TCCR2A = 0;
TCCR2B = 0;
TCCR2B |= (1 << CS20); //Enable timer without prescaler
OCR2A = 15; //Do interrupt TIMER2_COMPA after reaching this counter value
TIMSK2 |= (1 << 1); //Enable TIMER2_COMPA interrupt
DDRD |= (1 << PORTD3); //Set Digital Pin 3 as Output Pin
sei(); //Enable interrupts again
}
ISR(TIMER2_COMPA_vect) { //If the counter has reached the point where the output needs to be low
TCNT2 = 0;
PIND |= (1 << PORTD3); //Toggle Digital Pin 3
}
void loop() {
//your looping code here
}
Explanation:
TIMER2
is an 8-bit timer, which means it will always count from 0 to 255, regardless of what the CPU is doing.
Normally, it counts up at the Arduino's clock frequency, like 16 MHz.
When the counter hits 15, a special code is immediately executed, called an "Interrupt Service Routine". In this code, we reset the timer and change the state of your outpin pin, resulting in a 500 kHz square wave on that pin.
We count to 15 since there are 16 steps in between "0" where the counter begins and 15, where we reset it.
16'000'000 Hz / 1 (no prescaler) / 16 (counter) / 2 = 500 kHz
The divisor of 2 comes from the fact that we need to change the pin state twice for every full square of the output signal.
2
Sometimes you write 500kHz, then you write 500Hz. As calculated the code is for 500Hz. As the OP asked for 500kHz, the prescaler could be set to 1 and the compare value (at which the timer fires the interrupt) to 16. In my calculation this gives you exactly 500kHz. Am I right?
– chrisl
2 days ago
But as you wrote,digitalWrite()
takes to long, so bit manipulation on the port registers are the right way to go: arduino.cc/en/Reference/PortManipulation
– chrisl
2 days ago
Yes, of course, I'm so sorry. This is what happens when you recycle code after a long work day. I'll fix it. And you're also right, digitalRead and -Write are too slow for 500 kHz, I'll implement it via the registers.
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
1
You could use one of the hardware time outputs like OC2A or OCRB and avoid the ISR/digitalWrite/bitbanging overhead entirely.
– Dave X
2 days ago
It's fixed now - so sorry again. My scope isn't fast enough for 500 kHz, but it works as intended for 50 kHz. The "standard" outputs are nice, but you're then limited to the two pins per timer. Is that already necessary at 500 kHz?
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Welcome to SE.
digitalWrite()
takes a few microseconds to execute as well. There is also some overhead around the delayMicroseconds()
function.
I you need exactly 500 kHz, you would want to consider using a timer.
You can read up on how to set one up in the microcontrollers datasheet.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to an Arduino Leonardo, but here is an example code for the ATmega328P. The register names will be different, but you should be able to adapt the code to fit your Arduino.
// 500 kHz frequency
void setup() {
cli(); //Disable interrupt during setup
TCCR2A = 0;
TCCR2B = 0;
TCCR2B |= (1 << CS20); //Enable timer without prescaler
OCR2A = 15; //Do interrupt TIMER2_COMPA after reaching this counter value
TIMSK2 |= (1 << 1); //Enable TIMER2_COMPA interrupt
DDRD |= (1 << PORTD3); //Set Digital Pin 3 as Output Pin
sei(); //Enable interrupts again
}
ISR(TIMER2_COMPA_vect) { //If the counter has reached the point where the output needs to be low
TCNT2 = 0;
PIND |= (1 << PORTD3); //Toggle Digital Pin 3
}
void loop() {
//your looping code here
}
Explanation:
TIMER2
is an 8-bit timer, which means it will always count from 0 to 255, regardless of what the CPU is doing.
Normally, it counts up at the Arduino's clock frequency, like 16 MHz.
When the counter hits 15, a special code is immediately executed, called an "Interrupt Service Routine". In this code, we reset the timer and change the state of your outpin pin, resulting in a 500 kHz square wave on that pin.
We count to 15 since there are 16 steps in between "0" where the counter begins and 15, where we reset it.
16'000'000 Hz / 1 (no prescaler) / 16 (counter) / 2 = 500 kHz
The divisor of 2 comes from the fact that we need to change the pin state twice for every full square of the output signal.
Welcome to SE.
digitalWrite()
takes a few microseconds to execute as well. There is also some overhead around the delayMicroseconds()
function.
I you need exactly 500 kHz, you would want to consider using a timer.
You can read up on how to set one up in the microcontrollers datasheet.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to an Arduino Leonardo, but here is an example code for the ATmega328P. The register names will be different, but you should be able to adapt the code to fit your Arduino.
// 500 kHz frequency
void setup() {
cli(); //Disable interrupt during setup
TCCR2A = 0;
TCCR2B = 0;
TCCR2B |= (1 << CS20); //Enable timer without prescaler
OCR2A = 15; //Do interrupt TIMER2_COMPA after reaching this counter value
TIMSK2 |= (1 << 1); //Enable TIMER2_COMPA interrupt
DDRD |= (1 << PORTD3); //Set Digital Pin 3 as Output Pin
sei(); //Enable interrupts again
}
ISR(TIMER2_COMPA_vect) { //If the counter has reached the point where the output needs to be low
TCNT2 = 0;
PIND |= (1 << PORTD3); //Toggle Digital Pin 3
}
void loop() {
//your looping code here
}
Explanation:
TIMER2
is an 8-bit timer, which means it will always count from 0 to 255, regardless of what the CPU is doing.
Normally, it counts up at the Arduino's clock frequency, like 16 MHz.
When the counter hits 15, a special code is immediately executed, called an "Interrupt Service Routine". In this code, we reset the timer and change the state of your outpin pin, resulting in a 500 kHz square wave on that pin.
We count to 15 since there are 16 steps in between "0" where the counter begins and 15, where we reset it.
16'000'000 Hz / 1 (no prescaler) / 16 (counter) / 2 = 500 kHz
The divisor of 2 comes from the fact that we need to change the pin state twice for every full square of the output signal.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Tobias Weiß
3104
3104
2
Sometimes you write 500kHz, then you write 500Hz. As calculated the code is for 500Hz. As the OP asked for 500kHz, the prescaler could be set to 1 and the compare value (at which the timer fires the interrupt) to 16. In my calculation this gives you exactly 500kHz. Am I right?
– chrisl
2 days ago
But as you wrote,digitalWrite()
takes to long, so bit manipulation on the port registers are the right way to go: arduino.cc/en/Reference/PortManipulation
– chrisl
2 days ago
Yes, of course, I'm so sorry. This is what happens when you recycle code after a long work day. I'll fix it. And you're also right, digitalRead and -Write are too slow for 500 kHz, I'll implement it via the registers.
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
1
You could use one of the hardware time outputs like OC2A or OCRB and avoid the ISR/digitalWrite/bitbanging overhead entirely.
– Dave X
2 days ago
It's fixed now - so sorry again. My scope isn't fast enough for 500 kHz, but it works as intended for 50 kHz. The "standard" outputs are nice, but you're then limited to the two pins per timer. Is that already necessary at 500 kHz?
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
2
Sometimes you write 500kHz, then you write 500Hz. As calculated the code is for 500Hz. As the OP asked for 500kHz, the prescaler could be set to 1 and the compare value (at which the timer fires the interrupt) to 16. In my calculation this gives you exactly 500kHz. Am I right?
– chrisl
2 days ago
But as you wrote,digitalWrite()
takes to long, so bit manipulation on the port registers are the right way to go: arduino.cc/en/Reference/PortManipulation
– chrisl
2 days ago
Yes, of course, I'm so sorry. This is what happens when you recycle code after a long work day. I'll fix it. And you're also right, digitalRead and -Write are too slow for 500 kHz, I'll implement it via the registers.
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
1
You could use one of the hardware time outputs like OC2A or OCRB and avoid the ISR/digitalWrite/bitbanging overhead entirely.
– Dave X
2 days ago
It's fixed now - so sorry again. My scope isn't fast enough for 500 kHz, but it works as intended for 50 kHz. The "standard" outputs are nice, but you're then limited to the two pins per timer. Is that already necessary at 500 kHz?
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
2
2
Sometimes you write 500kHz, then you write 500Hz. As calculated the code is for 500Hz. As the OP asked for 500kHz, the prescaler could be set to 1 and the compare value (at which the timer fires the interrupt) to 16. In my calculation this gives you exactly 500kHz. Am I right?
– chrisl
2 days ago
Sometimes you write 500kHz, then you write 500Hz. As calculated the code is for 500Hz. As the OP asked for 500kHz, the prescaler could be set to 1 and the compare value (at which the timer fires the interrupt) to 16. In my calculation this gives you exactly 500kHz. Am I right?
– chrisl
2 days ago
But as you wrote,
digitalWrite()
takes to long, so bit manipulation on the port registers are the right way to go: arduino.cc/en/Reference/PortManipulation– chrisl
2 days ago
But as you wrote,
digitalWrite()
takes to long, so bit manipulation on the port registers are the right way to go: arduino.cc/en/Reference/PortManipulation– chrisl
2 days ago
Yes, of course, I'm so sorry. This is what happens when you recycle code after a long work day. I'll fix it. And you're also right, digitalRead and -Write are too slow for 500 kHz, I'll implement it via the registers.
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
Yes, of course, I'm so sorry. This is what happens when you recycle code after a long work day. I'll fix it. And you're also right, digitalRead and -Write are too slow for 500 kHz, I'll implement it via the registers.
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
1
1
You could use one of the hardware time outputs like OC2A or OCRB and avoid the ISR/digitalWrite/bitbanging overhead entirely.
– Dave X
2 days ago
You could use one of the hardware time outputs like OC2A or OCRB and avoid the ISR/digitalWrite/bitbanging overhead entirely.
– Dave X
2 days ago
It's fixed now - so sorry again. My scope isn't fast enough for 500 kHz, but it works as intended for 50 kHz. The "standard" outputs are nice, but you're then limited to the two pins per timer. Is that already necessary at 500 kHz?
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
It's fixed now - so sorry again. My scope isn't fast enough for 500 kHz, but it works as intended for 50 kHz. The "standard" outputs are nice, but you're then limited to the two pins per timer. Is that already necessary at 500 kHz?
– Tobias Weiß
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
delayMicroseconds() has a minimum lower value of 3-4 us per the IDE documentation. It won't do 1.
loop() also adds some delay mechanisms doing it's background stuff.
You will see better results with a while() :
loop(){
while (1){
digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(del);
digitalWrite(3, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(del);
}
}
with direct port manipulation in place of the digital writes.
There will also be jitter from the millis() background time keeping, if you want a smoother signal it will be best to turn off interrupts as well.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
delayMicroseconds() has a minimum lower value of 3-4 us per the IDE documentation. It won't do 1.
loop() also adds some delay mechanisms doing it's background stuff.
You will see better results with a while() :
loop(){
while (1){
digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(del);
digitalWrite(3, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(del);
}
}
with direct port manipulation in place of the digital writes.
There will also be jitter from the millis() background time keeping, if you want a smoother signal it will be best to turn off interrupts as well.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
delayMicroseconds() has a minimum lower value of 3-4 us per the IDE documentation. It won't do 1.
loop() also adds some delay mechanisms doing it's background stuff.
You will see better results with a while() :
loop(){
while (1){
digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(del);
digitalWrite(3, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(del);
}
}
with direct port manipulation in place of the digital writes.
There will also be jitter from the millis() background time keeping, if you want a smoother signal it will be best to turn off interrupts as well.
delayMicroseconds() has a minimum lower value of 3-4 us per the IDE documentation. It won't do 1.
loop() also adds some delay mechanisms doing it's background stuff.
You will see better results with a while() :
loop(){
while (1){
digitalWrite(3, HIGH);
delayMicroseconds(del);
digitalWrite(3, LOW);
delayMicroseconds(del);
}
}
with direct port manipulation in place of the digital writes.
There will also be jitter from the millis() background time keeping, if you want a smoother signal it will be best to turn off interrupts as well.
answered 2 days ago
CrossRoads
9437
9437
add a comment |
add a comment |
deadpixel is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
deadpixel is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
deadpixel is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
deadpixel is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2farduino.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57925%2fgenerated-frequency-is-not-as-expected%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Your code says 1 microsecond, but
delayMicroseconds
is actually much slower than that. Also theloop
has some overhead. Try putting the code insidewhile(true){ }
. Recent versions of the Arduino IDE have got better at making code faster, but if you want timing accuracy it is better to use low-level timer/counters of the AVR.– MichaelT
2 days ago