> You stated that some assumption or other was "the only thing it can be".
> You did later say "from what I can tell", but that sort of blanket and
> authorotative statement causes a interrupt in my mental parser.

His original said:

>> So something else is moving/changing and the only thing it can be is
>> the wiper inside the pot. from what I can tell.

As Occam indicates that the probability that "." is more likely a typo, 
perhaps intended to be the symbol usually found just to the left of "." on 
most keybaords, than a cessation of sentence or line of thought is to be 
prefered (but may or may not be true), it may be wise to increase the scope 
for your current value of "later" and / or desensitise the interupt trigger 
on your mental parser.

> If you meant "the only thing I can
> think of", then you should have said that.

Nah. That's letting him off far too lightly. There are dozens of other more 
explicit ways of saying it than he did. He should be taken to task, at 
length, and preferably in triplicate, for not having used wording that 
somebody else preferred to convey a concept, even if his way of saying it 
was clear enough. In fact, despite his way of saying it having been clear 
enough.

>> It is practically unloaded (100k)and there is a 1uF cap to 'remember'

> ... Then when people suggest things, you argue why they're wrong
> instead of trying the suggestions and maybe stopping to understand the
> mechanisms.

I could have sworn that adding a capacitor "to remember" the reading was 
exactly what somebody or other here was suggesting. Mind grows dim though, 
so maybe that wasn't what was suggested.


>... You're making some incorrect assumptions above,

:-)

> ... Go believe whatever you please.

:-)

>> and I bet a R-C filter would do a little too.

> You "bet", meaning you simply assume it won't work and therefore haven't
> tried it,

Interesting. My parser would have produced from that something like

  You are probably correct that ...

rather than something like

   I don't believe you ...

_________

>> Don't know how many wipers.

> How could you not know this!?

I'd assumed he meant that he thought you meant that there may be more than 
one contact finger running on the track, but that he didn't know how many 
fingers there were. I thought you may have too, not having initailly read 
the original with as much attention as some may have. It now seems you may 
have meant (and Occan says it's to be preferred) that there may have been 
two pots which are being commoned, or a pot with wipers at two differnt 
locations on the same track. Or something. But maybe not. What would Occam 
know anyway?



   RM

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