Vicent Colomar Prats wrote:
> It's "always" better to have a protection on each non-used pin than
> having nothing? True.

It's absolute statements like this that are voodoo electronics.  They are
certainly not real engineering.  In real engineering there is most often a
tradeoff, as in this case.

Protection on pins can sometimes be the right tradeoff.  But saying it is
*always* the right tradeoff is just silly since that ignores the costs.  In
this case the costs include components, board space for the components, and
board space for routing the lines.  These costs have to be weighed against
the benefits, which are miniscule at best compared to not even routing
traces to the pins.  Adding the tracks and extra parts may actually make
things worse due to high susceptibility to static discharge or RF pickup.

So if you want absolute certainty, go wave a dead fish over your project.
That always works, although you have to use the right species of fish during
the right phase of the monne and your thoughts have to be pure.  Meanwhile
for the rest of us there are real engineering tradeoffs to consider.

> No need to be sarcastic about your customers boards. I never spoke about
> them nor told you to change them.

Actually you did since they fall into your "always" case.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist