It has been advertised over the years that PICAXE is used in industry as well as education and by hobbyists. Does anyone have a list of companies that put PICAXE chips in their end products or know of companies that are actually using PICAXE in a role other than quick prototyping? Especially now that PICAXE has been coming out with faster and more powerful X1, X2, and M2 series?
Actual companies using PICAXE in production?
- Thread starter artswan
- Start date
This is an old'un from Holden....
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_105700/article.html
As to the specific role for the PICAXE I haven't a clue.
Maybe our cousins from Down Under can illuminate.
And don't forget that there may be commercial products using PICAXE that none of us know about.
Does Rev-Ed have an "Our products are used by ...." page anywhere?
I would imagine any use by big companies would be for non-mass-produced items. That's just a guess. I have no secret inside informaton.
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_105700/article.html
As to the specific role for the PICAXE I haven't a clue.
Maybe our cousins from Down Under can illuminate.
And don't forget that there may be commercial products using PICAXE that none of us know about.
Does Rev-Ed have an "Our products are used by ...." page anywhere?
I would imagine any use by big companies would be for non-mass-produced items. That's just a guess. I have no secret inside informaton.
One would guess that most would use the blank Pic equivelent, as why would they pay the extra price for a boot loaded picaxe when they could write the program for pic and save a packet per chip.
The pic is faster and more versatile than the picaxe, as well it can do all the picaxe can.
(it has to as the picaxe is limited by the pic functions)
So yes many would use a pic equivelent picaxe.
The pic is faster and more versatile than the picaxe, as well it can do all the picaxe can.
(it has to as the picaxe is limited by the pic functions)
So yes many would use a pic equivelent picaxe.
Well to validate their claim and to make you feel a little happy, so you can come down from your moon walk.
I have come across 1 product on the market that used a picaxe as the processor and it also gave great detail into the programming of it in the instructions.
It was a solar controller and the picaxe was choosen for its simplisity of making program changes if the end user required. (also explained in the instructions )
As i said before most would use a Pic but in this case the designer had the foresight that changes might be desired for advanced users and choose the picaxe.
Rev-ed's claim is true. (even if this is the only product on the market)
Im sure most here have better things to do than reasearch this dumb question.
I have come across 1 product on the market that used a picaxe as the processor and it also gave great detail into the programming of it in the instructions.
It was a solar controller and the picaxe was choosen for its simplisity of making program changes if the end user required. (also explained in the instructions )
As i said before most would use a Pic but in this case the designer had the foresight that changes might be desired for advanced users and choose the picaxe.
Rev-ed's claim is true. (even if this is the only product on the market)
Im sure most here have better things to do than reasearch this dumb question.
slimplynth
Senior Member
Seen a couple of products on **** that look home made, Solar Water Heater Pump Controller.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SOLAR-WATER-HEATING-PUMP-CONTROLLER-CIRCUIT-12V-DC-/290436395020?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_Gadgets&hash=item439f5bb00c#ht_894wt_958
The above being the most obvious example I could find. How big exactly (what turnover/staff count/unit sales) does a company need to be for it to be classed as part of an industry?
(N.B. personally think the industry of selling people pre breadboarded circuits is genius
)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SOLAR-WATER-HEATING-PUMP-CONTROLLER-CIRCUIT-12V-DC-/290436395020?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_Gadgets&hash=item439f5bb00c#ht_894wt_958
The above being the most obvious example I could find. How big exactly (what turnover/staff count/unit sales) does a company need to be for it to be classed as part of an industry?
(N.B. personally think the industry of selling people pre breadboarded circuits is genius
)Could you please quote the exact sources?
"since it is referred to in some of the literature".?
Ec
slimplynth
Senior Member
eColumbo is on the case now Im guessing few match his ability for 'Source' recollection. Anyone fancy a wager? I'll raise ya my (alleged) bottle of real ale
Im guessing few match his ability for 'Source' recollection. Anyone fancy a wager? I'll raise ya my (alleged) bottle of real ale How silly! Teehee!eColumbo is on the case now
More like EClouseau at the moment.
BeanieBots
Moderator
Quite a few Xbox "cheat" devices on eBay and also a few LED/RGB faders but none of them 'confess' to being PICAXE based.
I guess 'products' keep their core a secret to avoid "easy" copying.
I guess 'products' keep their core a secret to avoid "easy" copying.
The vast majority of companies using PICAXE chips in their equipment do not make the fact public - it is just used as a 'component' that does not require reprogramming by the end user. Therefore it is up to these companies, and not Revolution Education, to make this information public if they want to.
In fact quite a few would probably object if we start publishing lists, so we have no intention of doing so!
In fact quite a few would probably object if we start publishing lists, so we have no intention of doing so!
Well, see, that was the kind of info I was looking for, slimplynth. I thought someone would be able to come up with a simple answer, a few company names. Never thought there would be companies hiding the fact they use Picaxe, etc. I thought different people would each have a product or company they could testify for.
After all, there are companies, in various fields that proudly show their products being used as parts of other companies' products. A point of pride, etc.. The BASF big campaign for years was "We don't make the products you use everyday. We make the products you use, better." That is just one example.
Ohhhhh, wait a minute! I just had a thought. Hmmmm, Picaxe chips weren't used by Toyota in their braking systems were they?
After all, there are companies, in various fields that proudly show their products being used as parts of other companies' products. A point of pride, etc.. The BASF big campaign for years was "We don't make the products you use everyday. We make the products you use, better." That is just one example.
Ohhhhh, wait a minute! I just had a thought. Hmmmm, Picaxe chips weren't used by Toyota in their braking systems were they?
Last edited:
I have the Silicon Chip magazine with the Efijy Holden show car. It seems they use quite a few Picaxes, and over the years Holden Innovation (the group that produces the show cars) have used Picaxe 8, 8M, 18A, 18X, 40X. Article is from January 2006, so no more advanced newer Picaxe variants in the list.
For the Efijy they used a total of nine Picaxes, mostly in a board they have developed with Picaxe 40X's called - CM4. The Efijy has a total of four of these CM4 boards that have a high current H bridge, other high current outputs and analogue and digital inputs.
The four Modules control the following -
ePark Brake: a pushbutton park brake instead of the usual leaver, includes an accelerometer to limit it at high speeds.
Entry and Exit Control: Push button switches on the doors and boot to open them as well as a Picaxe 8m controlling a push button remote and proximity sensor to unlock the doors automatically.
ePRNDL: (electronic Park Reverse Neutral Drive Low) Essentially the normal auto system is replaced by buttons on the dash - drive, reverse etc.
Air Suspension: Height adjustment for the suspension.
Steering Column Lock: To make sure the front wheels centred for shows etc.
Lighting: Numerous LED 's controlled, headlamps, tail lamps, interior illumination etc.
I have just included the highlights, the actual article is six pages long, but quite a glowing recommendation for the Picaxe system.
For the Efijy they used a total of nine Picaxes, mostly in a board they have developed with Picaxe 40X's called - CM4. The Efijy has a total of four of these CM4 boards that have a high current H bridge, other high current outputs and analogue and digital inputs.
The four Modules control the following -
ePark Brake: a pushbutton park brake instead of the usual leaver, includes an accelerometer to limit it at high speeds.
Entry and Exit Control: Push button switches on the doors and boot to open them as well as a Picaxe 8m controlling a push button remote and proximity sensor to unlock the doors automatically.
ePRNDL: (electronic Park Reverse Neutral Drive Low) Essentially the normal auto system is replaced by buttons on the dash - drive, reverse etc.
Air Suspension: Height adjustment for the suspension.
Steering Column Lock: To make sure the front wheels centred for shows etc.
Lighting: Numerous LED 's controlled, headlamps, tail lamps, interior illumination etc.
I have just included the highlights, the actual article is six pages long, but quite a glowing recommendation for the Picaxe system.
BeanieBots
Moderator
Seems they've missed an opportunity there.
Link the two modules for automated high speed "hand"-brake turns
Is the PICAXE controlled lighting to illuminate the brake lights when the park brake is applied at high speed
vincenthuaweitien
New Member
Check out this website http://www.snapshotsniper.com/index.htm
supermodzcom
New Member
@artswan
All products my company has ever sold utilized the PICAXE chips for manufacturing / production. We utilize them because they are reprogrammable. That way you develop one installation method or interface circuit and then change the code to modify the functionality. Additionally the BASIC language makes it easy for customers to tinker and conduct DIY projects or even modify their products further.
-Reggie
All products my company has ever sold utilized the PICAXE chips for manufacturing / production. We utilize them because they are reprogrammable. That way you develop one installation method or interface circuit and then change the code to modify the functionality. Additionally the BASIC language makes it easy for customers to tinker and conduct DIY projects or even modify their products further.
-Reggie
supermodzcom
New Member
Reprogramable Xbox 360 Rapid Fire Controllers
I can see a couple of problems with advertising that one uses a PicAxe in production.
Firstly - if you want the customer to tinker then you will have to supply the source code.
Secondly - lets say that you make a product X with a picaxe in it. A customer semi-reverse engineers the code from observation and then writes their own. Product X fails horribly and caused injury etc. As one can nolonger retrieve the code in a PicAxe how can you PROVE that it was not your code/product that failed but rather modifications by the customer.
Likewise if you give the customer the code and they modify it and resell it on a Picaxe under their brand name (but not supply the source code) - how can you prove that it is your code that was copied.
One of the reasons that I think people love the Picaxe but are careful to say where it is used.
Just my views
Dave
Firstly - if you want the customer to tinker then you will have to supply the source code.
Secondly - lets say that you make a product X with a picaxe in it. A customer semi-reverse engineers the code from observation and then writes their own. Product X fails horribly and caused injury etc. As one can nolonger retrieve the code in a PicAxe how can you PROVE that it was not your code/product that failed but rather modifications by the customer.
Likewise if you give the customer the code and they modify it and resell it on a Picaxe under their brand name (but not supply the source code) - how can you prove that it is your code that was copied.
One of the reasons that I think people love the Picaxe but are careful to say where it is used.
Just my views
Dave
supermodzcom
New Member
I agree with Marcwolf's logic on why it probably isn't disclosed... it definately depends on what you are producing. In the case of video game hardware, PICAXE is a natural fit for electronics enthusiasts and DIY's.
However, if you use the chips in applications where safety is concerened (like the car applications referred to earlier) you could have issues by making it too easy for user modification.
Depending on your marketing approach / application, you may give away code examples to encourage learning / innovation. I have started taking that approach. Rather than monetizing the product and worrying about copy cats, you can monetize the learning process and provide value through teaching. And best of all, you create another faithful PICAXE enthusiast.
@MartinM57 - Not yet, but I'm working on a lil' something... something...
However, if you use the chips in applications where safety is concerened (like the car applications referred to earlier) you could have issues by making it too easy for user modification.
Depending on your marketing approach / application, you may give away code examples to encourage learning / innovation. I have started taking that approach. Rather than monetizing the product and worrying about copy cats, you can monetize the learning process and provide value through teaching. And best of all, you create another faithful PICAXE enthusiast.
@MartinM57 - Not yet, but I'm working on a lil' something... something...
hippy
Ex-Staff (retired)
It is equally impossible for the the customer to prove they did not modify the code. As it's not possible to 'prove a negative', the evidence tested would normally be of the customer proving the code was the manufacturer's and the manufacturer proving it was the customer's.
If the manufacturer cannot prove it's customer's code they probably have to defend on the basis it is theirs, but the customer still has to prove it was manufacturer's code which was responsible. In an English criminal court this may make "beyond reasonable doubt" impossible to prove, but English civil courts decide on "balance of probability". It's impossible to say which way any particular case would go.
For safety critical, it would perhaps not be wise to allow user modifiable code where you cannot prove it was modified.
"Sudden vehicle acceleration" cases are probably a good parallel; did control equipment cause acceleration or was it the driver ? Neither side can prove they did not cause the problem so it's for each side to prove their opponents did.
Absolutely. And the same argument can apply to any a.n.other MicroP code too.
Under many circumstances, you can have a little routine which outputs a serial/product number.
You could arrange it so that it detects pin status at startup or under a serial command. Or maybe something cleverer.
Just don't tell anyone unless it's a lawyer
And, rule number 1, for a commercial product - NEVER release the code.
There may be special circumstances where you have an OEM customer who would like the code but you write all this stuff into an agreement or contract.
We have this at work; a certain semi manufacturer supplies us with working code with a product and we modify it. We both know very well that this is done and there is no liability/responsibility with the semi manuf.
If it's a trendy Open Source product then this is part of your T&C contract. Just be careful as there are loads of people who want to diddle you.
Under many circumstances, you can have a little routine which outputs a serial/product number.
You could arrange it so that it detects pin status at startup or under a serial command. Or maybe something cleverer.
Just don't tell anyone unless it's a lawyer
And, rule number 1, for a commercial product - NEVER release the code.
There may be special circumstances where you have an OEM customer who would like the code but you write all this stuff into an agreement or contract.
We have this at work; a certain semi manufacturer supplies us with working code with a product and we modify it. We both know very well that this is done and there is no liability/responsibility with the semi manuf.
If it's a trendy Open Source product then this is part of your T&C contract. Just be careful as there are loads of people who want to diddle you.
I've been using PICAXE commercially for years now, basically ever since Stan Swan made us all aware of them in Silicon Chip a few years ago.
Having also played with the Parallax BASIC stamp(1 and 2), which is a similar concept, but about 10 times the price per unit, so PICAXE was a natural path to take. That, and PICAXE are available in both standard DIL and SMD packages, which is extremely useful for small projects - the BASIC Stamp cannot compete here in terms of size.
On the code front, source-code is closed for exactly the reasons that Marcwolf mentioned.
If the customer wants things to happen differently, I can write changes to the code during roll-out, and am happy to re-program any units for different operation as part of the service-contract, but I would NEVER release source code, as someone with an ego and a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, if you let them have the source code!!!
I do have an escrow agreement with all my clients, in that if I was to be hit by a bus or otherwise get a terminal medical condition, all details including the code, schematics, PCB layouts etc, are released to them via the company lawyers, so that they can continue to use the product, and find someone else to administer to the system if I am no longer here.
An escrow is quite easy and relativey cheap to setup with your lawyer, and helps greatly to seal the deal, as it were, as clients are unwilling to buy systems from you unless your name is Microsoft! (In other words: What happens if something happens to you? We're stuck with a useless system, cos you are the only one who knows how it works...)
Having also played with the Parallax BASIC stamp(1 and 2), which is a similar concept, but about 10 times the price per unit, so PICAXE was a natural path to take. That, and PICAXE are available in both standard DIL and SMD packages, which is extremely useful for small projects - the BASIC Stamp cannot compete here in terms of size.
On the code front, source-code is closed for exactly the reasons that Marcwolf mentioned.
If the customer wants things to happen differently, I can write changes to the code during roll-out, and am happy to re-program any units for different operation as part of the service-contract, but I would NEVER release source code, as someone with an ego and a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, if you let them have the source code!!!
I do have an escrow agreement with all my clients, in that if I was to be hit by a bus or otherwise get a terminal medical condition, all details including the code, schematics, PCB layouts etc, are released to them via the company lawyers, so that they can continue to use the product, and find someone else to administer to the system if I am no longer here.
An escrow is quite easy and relativey cheap to setup with your lawyer, and helps greatly to seal the deal, as it were, as clients are unwilling to buy systems from you unless your name is Microsoft!
(In other words: What happens if something happens to you? We're stuck with a useless system, cos you are the only one who knows how it works...)