>
>Then make a web page with your results!

And hope nothing changes on the next date code, die shrink, or 
different fab facility, or that the oscillator duty cycle isn't a bit 
more asymmetrical than the last bunch, due to crystal changes, cap 
value, pcb layout, or the processor itself..


I have heard of companies getting selected parts, and "waivers" form 
the chip vendors to exceed specs like this.
Rare, but it happens. When you get one, you are assured that you can 
safely do exactly what they issued the waiver on.
I have one on Sanyo NIMH batteries, to charge 10C hotter than the 
spec indicates, in one application.
They needed to know a lot about the system before approving it though.


I've also seen people push a part outside it's design limits without 
factory guidance, with varying levels of success.
Far more on the negative side though.


We all know that there's a little bit of extra margin in the clock 
speeds, on any device.
But, the manufacturer is guaranteeing that the device will meet all 
it's specs, all the time, if you operate within the limits.
Once you cross the line, you're on your own, and the failures may or 
may not be obvious.

It comes down to risk management, what's your downside risk, and 
what's the benefit if it works?

I would look hard for other solutions first.
Depending on the task, an AVR or other processor might do better than 
a pic, even through their clock speeds are not all that impressive at 
first glance.


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