Yes, I the RJ12 is mentioned, as a 6p4c jack, which the ICD2 definately is *not* (it is a 6p5c, I guess). Apparently the definition of the "Registered jack" type, requires (twisted) pairs of conductors... and the ICD2 has 5 conductors, which is non-conformant as well. The references I quote must somehow be wrong ;-) I will have to be more careful about "common names" and "real names". Rolf Shawn Wilton wrote: > Strange, I have a box of connectors at home that says RJ-12 on it... > > Microchip calls it an RJ-12: > http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/51265g.pdf > > Some more links referring to RJ-12: > http://midondesign.com/TEMP08/P13RJ11vsRJ12.html > > Also, the Wiki article does mention an RJ-12. Just says it's not common. > > > On 10/24/06, Rolf wrote: > >> I posted a note on piclist a while back with a similar issue.... My ICD2 >> only works if the plug is pushed in further into the jack than just the >> "click". You need to push it that extra mm more. >> >> Otehrwise it is an excercise in frustration. I guess the jacks used by >> Microchip are slightly non-conformant with standards. >> >> For the record, I figured Olin's pedantic reply about his ICD2 not >> having an RJ12 plug was worth investigating, and it appears he is right. >> >> ICD2 s do NOT have RJ12 jacks. There apparently is no such thing >> specified. An RJ11 jack is a 6p2c modular plug, an RJ14 is 6p4c, and an >> RJ25 is 6p6c. >> >> Thus, the closest "RJ" match is RJ25. But, then, it is not really a >> pertinent naming convention since the ICD2 is not telephony equiptment, >> thus, the best descriptor fot the ICD2 would be a 6p6c modular Jack. >> >> Go figure. >> >> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_jack >> >> Rolf >> >> -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist