Pulse generation — which digital counter type is commonly used to generate a sequence of equally spaced timing pulses (one pulse per stage in a repeating pattern)?

Introduction / Context:
Timing circuits often need a train of equally spaced pulses distributed across multiple outputs. Certain counter structures naturally produce such patterns, simplifying timing generation without decoding logic. This question asks which counter is especially suited for this purpose.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Multiple outputs required, each pulsing in turn.
• Simple, predictable, nonbinary state sequence desired.
• Clock provides uniform step timing.

Concept / Approach:
A ring counter circulates a single logic 1 through N flip-flops (for an N-stage register). Each stage output goes high exactly once per N clocks, producing N equally spaced pulses over one full cycle. This “one-hot” property makes the ring counter ideal for sequential timing (stepper control, multiplexing, strobes) with minimal decoding. Johnson counters also yield evenly distributed transitions but create two-hot patterns and 2N states, not single-pulse-per-stage timing by default. Binary counters require decoding to create isolated pulses for each count.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Simulate a 4-stage ring: outputs Q0, Q1, Q2, Q3 each go high in turn every four clocks; pulses are evenly spaced in time.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Johnson counter: Generates two-hot sequences; not a single-pulse output per stage without extra logic.
• Binary up counter: Needs decoding to derive per-stage pulses.
• Ripple counter: Describes asynchronous clocking, not the specific output pattern needed.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “equally spaced pulses” at one output with “one pulse per stage.” A ring counter inherently gives the latter without extra decoding.

Final Answer:
Ring counter.