Sequential start-up/shut-down circuits?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ravant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circuits
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on creating a sequential start-up and shut-down circuit for audio equipment using IC555 timers, with specific delays to prevent damaging power-up pops. The original design aimed to use a series of monostable timers to control relays for each system, but issues arose with the timers dropping low before the desired delays were completed. The solution evolved to using a programmable logic controller (PLC) to manage the timing and sequencing, allowing for a more reliable and user-friendly operation. The PLC triggers outputs to control relays while ensuring that the start-up and shut-down processes are executed in the correct order with appropriate delays. This approach simplifies the design and enhances safety by preventing simultaneous operations during the power sequences.
Ravant
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Alright- to start with, I apologize if this is an easily remedied issue, or if I'm over-thinking it, but - here it goes.

Using IC555's, I'd like to build a series of timer circuits that can power up a group of sound equipment with a specific timed procedure. As it is right now, myself and the other audio engineers at this location have to lap the building three times to get all five systems started, and to be frank, we're lazy, and would like to make the start-up process as "newbie-friendly" as possible.

The systems have to start up with particular delays, as follows.
1) Console
7-second delay
2) Monitor control system (Avioms)
7-second delay
3) Power rack
15-second delay
4) Main speakers
2-second delay
5) Monitor speakers

Without the delays listed, it's possible to cause loud pops damaging to the human ears, or even severely damage some of the equipment in question. (Power-up pops can blow the main speakers pretty readily, and filtering them out is VERY costly. We simply cannot afford the price of the filters.) Also - they have to power down in exactly the opposite order they were powered up, with the same time delays going in the other direction.

Now, here goes my thoughts/designs/possibly idiotic musings.

What I originally wanted to do was build a timer circuit for each system such that a momentary contact pushbutton powers on the console, then starts a 7-second timer, which then, at the end of 7 seconds, trips the second relay, and starts another 7-second timer, which, at the end of 7 seconds, trips the third relay, and starts a 15 second timer...etc.etc.etc. to basically go through a fully automated power-up sequence. Then for the power-down sequence, have a series of timers going the opposite direction which, at the end of their times, they send a pulse to the first set of timers to stop outputting voltage to the relays to power them off.

Here's the problem.

An IC555 monostable timer only goes high for the number of seconds decided by using the resistors and capacitors, then drops low again. What this will do is trip the relay, leave it on for x number of seconds, and drop low. This is a problem.

Example: Timer 3 is using a 1M resistor and a 10µF capacitor. So - it's low, gets triggered, goes high for 15 seconds, then goes low again. So - the main speakers would turn on for 15 seconds at the beginning of the cycle, and turn off again.

How I decided to try to fix the problem.

Get the inverse of the output of a 555 monostable timer, and use that to pulse to a 555 bistable latched switch. Problem. The 555 bistable goes high the instant the trigger pulse drops low. Not at the end of the pulse. So - there's no delay. But the bistable latched circuit does what I need it to do. Output high on pulse, and stay high until a pulse comes into the reset pin (4) to power it off. But - the timer still doesn't do what I need it to do (wait 'til x number of seconds passes, then go high.).

Now here's my question.

Am I over-complicating things horrendously again? Is there a timer circuit I can build that outputs low, takes an input pulse, stays low for X number of seconds, then goes high and stays high until the reset pin is pulsed? In any case, is what I'm trying to do here remotely realistic? Or am I just having illusions of grandeur?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Can you run wires to the stations, and control the power switches from one location? Alternately, you could use powerline communication to turn on the remote power switches from a central computer location. You wouldn't want to use X-10 for the powerline control, since it isn't reliable enough to ensure that the messages got through. But there are alternate powerline comm technologies that are very reliable, and not all that expensive. My company offers good powerline comm technology, but I probably shouldn't link to that here (advertising -- the other Mentors would have a field day with me). Here's another company with similar powerline capability:

http://www.bibaja.com/products/index.php
 
if you had any kind of FPGA or CPLD dev kit you could program those delays and get the signals out in about 20-30 minutes of design. Would be a lot more simple than using 555 timers. you can get a spartan3 kit for around $100
 
you just need a latch behind each timer...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latch_(electronics )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We've decided to use a programmable logic controller at the heart of the system, instead of timing circuits. Reverted to my software roots instead of the hardware design out of lack of time. But - there's a couple problems with using latches behind each timer circuit.

1) A timer will stay low until it gets input, goes high until the capacitor discharges, at which point it goes low again.
2) The latch will go high and stay high at the beginning of the timer's pulse, not the end of it.
3) Even if I used an inverter on the timer's output to keep it high, drop low for x amount of time, then pull high again, and used a bistable 555 latching circuit as a "relay controller", the problem still remains about the timing pulse. The latch goes high at the beginning of the pulse, not the end, eliminating the timer's effectiveness.

Instead, what we've done, is get a PLC with 16 inputs or outputs available, wired a momentary contact pushbutton as the only input, and had a few outputs as well. All of the timing is being controlled by the PLC. The PLC's outputs are wired to an inverter (to get an always-high, with low pulse output) to allow the 555 bistable latches to operate properly, which control the individual relays.

Momentary contact drops voltage into the PLC. If the voltage drop lasts longer than 500 milliseconds (0.5 seconds), and the system is in standby, the standby red LED turns off, and a yellow LED is illuminated, and the startup process begins. The PLC acts like a series of cascading timers, triggering each output pulse to the inverters when they're supposed to be triggered, tripping the 555 latch, causing the devices to power on. When the startup process is complete, the yellow LED turns off, and a green LED is illuminated. To power off the system, the same momentary contact pushbutton needs to be held for 1500 milliseconds (1.5 seconds), then the shut-down procedure begins (green LED off, yellow on.). Timers run internally, and a whole new set of outputs operate. The outputs are wired to similar inverter circuits, but instead of being wired to the trigger pins of the bistable 555's, they're wired to the reset pin (4) which pulses to deactivate each circuit, powering off the relays, and thus the devices one by one at their proper times. When the shut down process is complete, the yellow LED turns off, and the red one turns on. Lastly, we've created a feedback loop from the yellow LED output to create a second "input" for the PLC to avoid taking up extra program space with if/then statements. What this feedback loop does is, while the yellow LED is lit, the momentary contact pushbutton is disabled. This makes it so you cannot initiate a startup or shut-down procedure while the device is already going through its processes, otherwise, you end up creating a dangerous infinite loop that could potentially damage expensive audio equipment.

I do appreciate the help, everyone, and I will be using this as not only a controller for the auditorium, but for massive extra credit where needed. :) Thanks again!
 
Hey guys. I have a question related to electricity and alternating current. Say an alien fictional society developed electricity, and settled on a standard like 73V AC current at 46 Hz. How would appliances be designed, and what impact would the lower frequency and voltage have on transformers, wiring, TVs, computers, LEDs, motors, and heating, assuming the laws of physics and technology are the same as on Earth?
While I was rolling out a shielded cable, a though came to my mind - what happens to the current flow in the cable if there came a short between the wire and the shield in both ends of the cable? For simplicity, lets assume a 1-wire copper wire wrapped in an aluminum shield. The wire and the shield has the same cross section area. There are insulating material between them, and in both ends there is a short between them. My first thought, the total resistance of the cable would be reduced...
I used to be an HVAC technician. One time I had a service call in which there was no power to the thermostat. The thermostat did not have power because the fuse in the air handler was blown. The fuse in the air handler was blown because there was a low voltage short. The rubber coating on one of the thermostat wires was chewed off by a rodent. The exposed metal in the thermostat wire was touching the metal cabinet of the air handler. This was a low voltage short. This low voltage...
Back
Top