8:1 multiplexer to 6:1 multiplexer












4














I have 6 inputs that I want to insert in a 8-1 multiplexer. I just want to know how to modify the 8-1 mux to support only 6 inputs. I mean the last two rows on the truth table of the 8-1 won't be available.



This is the 8-1 mux I am using:
enter image description here



and its logic table:



enter image description here



I only want to use the D0 to D5 inputs.










share|improve this question
























  • Then ensure that your selection inputs only produces numbers in the range 000 to 101. Go stufy modulo arithmetic.
    – Andy aka
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:36








  • 1




    You might tie the top 3 inputs together, thus 101,110, and 111 produce the same output. Will this confuse your state machine?
    – analogsystemsrf
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:49






  • 2




    Nothing in the MUX should be modified. It's the S-inputs who define. The S>=6 should be don't cares.
    – Eugene Sh.
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:50












  • Instead of placing the enable on the inputs, perhaps you should put the enable on the output? Literally after the OR gate and before it forks into Y and Ỹ. Besides, are you sure that it is Y and Ỹ, shouldn't they be swapped?
    – Harry Svensson
    Dec 12 '18 at 18:27
















4














I have 6 inputs that I want to insert in a 8-1 multiplexer. I just want to know how to modify the 8-1 mux to support only 6 inputs. I mean the last two rows on the truth table of the 8-1 won't be available.



This is the 8-1 mux I am using:
enter image description here



and its logic table:



enter image description here



I only want to use the D0 to D5 inputs.










share|improve this question
























  • Then ensure that your selection inputs only produces numbers in the range 000 to 101. Go stufy modulo arithmetic.
    – Andy aka
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:36








  • 1




    You might tie the top 3 inputs together, thus 101,110, and 111 produce the same output. Will this confuse your state machine?
    – analogsystemsrf
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:49






  • 2




    Nothing in the MUX should be modified. It's the S-inputs who define. The S>=6 should be don't cares.
    – Eugene Sh.
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:50












  • Instead of placing the enable on the inputs, perhaps you should put the enable on the output? Literally after the OR gate and before it forks into Y and Ỹ. Besides, are you sure that it is Y and Ỹ, shouldn't they be swapped?
    – Harry Svensson
    Dec 12 '18 at 18:27














4












4








4







I have 6 inputs that I want to insert in a 8-1 multiplexer. I just want to know how to modify the 8-1 mux to support only 6 inputs. I mean the last two rows on the truth table of the 8-1 won't be available.



This is the 8-1 mux I am using:
enter image description here



and its logic table:



enter image description here



I only want to use the D0 to D5 inputs.










share|improve this question















I have 6 inputs that I want to insert in a 8-1 multiplexer. I just want to know how to modify the 8-1 mux to support only 6 inputs. I mean the last two rows on the truth table of the 8-1 won't be available.



This is the 8-1 mux I am using:
enter image description here



and its logic table:



enter image description here



I only want to use the D0 to D5 inputs.







multiplexer






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 12 '18 at 18:21









mike65535

1,0001619




1,0001619










asked Dec 12 '18 at 15:27









zaiz2s

211




211












  • Then ensure that your selection inputs only produces numbers in the range 000 to 101. Go stufy modulo arithmetic.
    – Andy aka
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:36








  • 1




    You might tie the top 3 inputs together, thus 101,110, and 111 produce the same output. Will this confuse your state machine?
    – analogsystemsrf
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:49






  • 2




    Nothing in the MUX should be modified. It's the S-inputs who define. The S>=6 should be don't cares.
    – Eugene Sh.
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:50












  • Instead of placing the enable on the inputs, perhaps you should put the enable on the output? Literally after the OR gate and before it forks into Y and Ỹ. Besides, are you sure that it is Y and Ỹ, shouldn't they be swapped?
    – Harry Svensson
    Dec 12 '18 at 18:27


















  • Then ensure that your selection inputs only produces numbers in the range 000 to 101. Go stufy modulo arithmetic.
    – Andy aka
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:36








  • 1




    You might tie the top 3 inputs together, thus 101,110, and 111 produce the same output. Will this confuse your state machine?
    – analogsystemsrf
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:49






  • 2




    Nothing in the MUX should be modified. It's the S-inputs who define. The S>=6 should be don't cares.
    – Eugene Sh.
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:50












  • Instead of placing the enable on the inputs, perhaps you should put the enable on the output? Literally after the OR gate and before it forks into Y and Ỹ. Besides, are you sure that it is Y and Ỹ, shouldn't they be swapped?
    – Harry Svensson
    Dec 12 '18 at 18:27
















Then ensure that your selection inputs only produces numbers in the range 000 to 101. Go stufy modulo arithmetic.
– Andy aka
Dec 12 '18 at 15:36






Then ensure that your selection inputs only produces numbers in the range 000 to 101. Go stufy modulo arithmetic.
– Andy aka
Dec 12 '18 at 15:36






1




1




You might tie the top 3 inputs together, thus 101,110, and 111 produce the same output. Will this confuse your state machine?
– analogsystemsrf
Dec 12 '18 at 15:49




You might tie the top 3 inputs together, thus 101,110, and 111 produce the same output. Will this confuse your state machine?
– analogsystemsrf
Dec 12 '18 at 15:49




2




2




Nothing in the MUX should be modified. It's the S-inputs who define. The S>=6 should be don't cares.
– Eugene Sh.
Dec 12 '18 at 15:50






Nothing in the MUX should be modified. It's the S-inputs who define. The S>=6 should be don't cares.
– Eugene Sh.
Dec 12 '18 at 15:50














Instead of placing the enable on the inputs, perhaps you should put the enable on the output? Literally after the OR gate and before it forks into Y and Ỹ. Besides, are you sure that it is Y and Ỹ, shouldn't they be swapped?
– Harry Svensson
Dec 12 '18 at 18:27




Instead of placing the enable on the inputs, perhaps you should put the enable on the output? Literally after the OR gate and before it forks into Y and Ỹ. Besides, are you sure that it is Y and Ỹ, shouldn't they be swapped?
– Harry Svensson
Dec 12 '18 at 18:27










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6














Assume that D6 and D7 are always low. Trace those signals through the gates in your design. If you find gates whose output values must always be the same, those gates can be removed and their output signals changed to a direct connection to logic '1' or '0'. Repeat until no gates are removed. Then remove unnecessary direct connections to logic '1' or '0'.






share|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
    StackExchange.schematics.init();
    });
    }, "cicuitlab");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "135"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f411858%2f81-multiplexer-to-61-multiplexer%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6














    Assume that D6 and D7 are always low. Trace those signals through the gates in your design. If you find gates whose output values must always be the same, those gates can be removed and their output signals changed to a direct connection to logic '1' or '0'. Repeat until no gates are removed. Then remove unnecessary direct connections to logic '1' or '0'.






    share|improve this answer


























      6














      Assume that D6 and D7 are always low. Trace those signals through the gates in your design. If you find gates whose output values must always be the same, those gates can be removed and their output signals changed to a direct connection to logic '1' or '0'. Repeat until no gates are removed. Then remove unnecessary direct connections to logic '1' or '0'.






      share|improve this answer
























        6












        6








        6






        Assume that D6 and D7 are always low. Trace those signals through the gates in your design. If you find gates whose output values must always be the same, those gates can be removed and their output signals changed to a direct connection to logic '1' or '0'. Repeat until no gates are removed. Then remove unnecessary direct connections to logic '1' or '0'.






        share|improve this answer












        Assume that D6 and D7 are always low. Trace those signals through the gates in your design. If you find gates whose output values must always be the same, those gates can be removed and their output signals changed to a direct connection to logic '1' or '0'. Repeat until no gates are removed. Then remove unnecessary direct connections to logic '1' or '0'.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Dec 12 '18 at 15:33









        Elliot Alderson

        4,7891918




        4,7891918






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f411858%2f81-multiplexer-to-61-multiplexer%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?