I continue to hack away at making an easy to install clock doubler board
for Model T computers. I realize that modifying hardware is not of interest
to most, but I spend a lot of time on it myself.

The point of the activity is to allow the user to switch from nominal
2.5MHz operation to 2x or 5MHz operation using a BASIC command.  In
M100/T102/NEC/M10/KC-85, all these variants have a very slow screen
response time, and so doubling the clock rate makes the machine more
responsive.  Tandy 200 isn't as slow, but it is still nice to run fast.

5MHz operation is way outside of specifications, true.  None of the parts
in an M100 say they can run that fast.  So far though, I have been making
extensive use of it and have had no problems.  The only issues that show up
are when there is a timing loop in software that does not like being sped
up.  In situations like that, the user can downgrade to 2.5MHz mode.  I
think switchability is a must for this reason.

So far I have successfully upgraded
Model 100 (several!  both older and newer)
Tandy 102 (a few)
Tandy 200 (one)

Generally, when speeding up, the computer needs to run both the main ROM
and the system RAM at 2x speed, and the power increases a bit.

Main ROM speed:
I have found that in the M100, for early production models, one needs to
replace the main ROM for a faster one.  Some later production use ROMs that
are already fast enough.  Tandy 102 and 200 ROMs seem fast enough.

RAM speed:
When the computer uses RAM that is 250nsec rated, these are often too
slow.  This can occur in M100, T102 and T200.  In T200, I have no work
around.  The T200 needs 200nsec or faster RAM.  In M100/T102, I have a work
around that involves a simple cut/strap.

Power:
Consumption generally increases.  For M100, with a nominal current of 56mA
for the stock computer, a modified computer in 2.5MHz mode will see an
increase to about 60mA.  This is the "tax" paid for speed up capability.
When operating in 5MHz mode, the current jumps to about 75mA or so.

I'm attaching my current schematic for anyone interested in how the little
board is designed.  The board mounts on top of the 80C85, and steals the
signals it needs directly from the CPU.  There are 5 key circuits.

1) oscillator:  generates 9.8304MHz

2) clock divider:  generates 2.45MHz for the computer system components.
Replaces the CLK output of the CPU, so that the downstream elements always
run based on 2.45MHz.

3) State:  a circuit that captures the user command to operate in either 1x
or 2x clock speed.  User command is OUT 85, 0 or OUT 85, 1.  (80"85").  In
T200, the real time clock RP5C01 is too slow for 5MHz operation, so the CL
input is the chip select line for that part.  The CL input forces the clock
to 2.5MHz whenever the RC5C01 is accessed.

4) Clock select:  This circuit uses 2 flip flops to generate either 9.8MHz
or 4.9MHz depending on state.  This circuit feeds clock to the 80C85.  The
original on-board crystal can be overdriven, no problem.

5) Astar signal:  In M100/T102 (and likely M10 and  8201) the A* signal is
used to gate the SRAM chip selects.  What this signal does is it limits the
"on" time of the SRAM, to limit power consumption. I was previously unaware
of this trick.   In 2x mode, the stock A* signal limits the access cycle
time to the SRAM, and only fast SRAM (200nsec or less) can tolerate this.
The solution for older machines with slower SRAM is to trigger A* earlier.
This circuit generates "early A*" to resolve this problem.

This implementation is now current and is being used in M100, T102 and
T200.  I'm  planning to extend to M10 and NEC shortly, and if I encounter
more changes I will update the design.

My ultimate goal is to have a board that is as easy as possible to build
and install, using SOIC parts (which I think are ok to hand solder) and
through hole parts for the remainder.
Currently the boar has 6 SOICs, 4 resistors, 4 caps and a crystal.

The schematic is attached as a PNG for now, for the curious.

Comments and questions welcome!
If anyone is interested in the EAGLE board file, I'm happy to share it.

Steve

Reply via email to