>> Yeah but.  But.  I mean.  Of course it's that, but I mean, it has 
>> to be more deep than that because that was too obvious, no?

> You were expecting something from Russel's post let alone Star Wars 
> to be deep? ;-)

1.    What is the sound of one dog barking?

2.    Not everyone is as incisive as Lindy :-). It's truly amazing how 
many people look at you completely blankly and have to have it spelt 
out word by word. rather makes it unworthwhile. If it ever was.

3.    People have queried how 5/5/5 (0r 5/5/05 (inconsistently)) 
relates to an unsuccessful timer as they consider it works well. That 
was an opinion from a group of friends of mine who consider the 555 an 
abomination, an opinion I only partially share. The original ones had 
(and have) a very very nasty supply spike at switching time due to 
totem pole shoot through. They are also not nicely planned in the 
charge and discharge area. CMOS implementations fix the supply spike 
by not having any hair on their chest for driving loads. My friends 
maintain that you can do a better job as easily using better 
technology. I consider that despite its faults the 555 is a useful 
building block as long as you are aware of its shortcomings. applies 
to many ICs.



        RM


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist