RussellMc wrote:
> Hint: It's almost invariably easier to type the key words into
> Gargoyle than to whi..., er, expostulate about what you don't know
> enough about.

Once again you miss the point, or more likely are deliberately pretending t=
o
miss the point.

First, no, it really is easier to type one sentence than to dig around on
the net to figure out what the OP is asking about.  Second, and more
importantly, the OP should provide the relevant information.  Preferably
this is a paragraph or so.  If necessary, it can contain a link to
additional information after the paragraph gives the basics and the context=
..
Expecting us all to just know what "TB045" is without even a link means the
OP has a lot to learn about writing questions with his audience in mind.

> It also has the bonuses that you get to know things quicker

I'm not the one with the problem.  It doesn't matter to me if it takes
hours, days, or weeks to solve it, or if it ever gets solved.  If the OP
wants a better answer quicker, he needs to ask better questions quicker.

> and more completely and in your own way rather than just being
> given the bits that the client thinks are relevant

There is some point to that, but I'm really busy right now and don't feel
like digging into this for my amusement.  I really really wish you wouldn't
respond like this so that I don't have to waste my time responding to you.
It's always the same old stuff, and it's going to stay that way.  I'm going
to answer with a mix of real information and question training as I see fit
regardless of how much you whine about it.  Save us all some time and get
over it already.

> and best of all, perhaps, that way people may end up thinking
> you know a lot more than you really do.

How do you know I don't already do that in all other cases ;-)

> For your edification: TB045 is, not too surprisingly, a Microchip
> document relating to the subject at hand.

Actually that is a bit surprising.  I was expecting a Microchip document to
be names ANxxx.

> "145027" is indeed jargon / shorthand, and is liable to be recognised
> by those 'skilled in the art'.

I've never used them and truly didn't recognize them.  But again, I want th=
e
OP to come back and explain it, not you.

> It seems likely that the OP really wants replies mainly from people
> who have some grasp of the quadrant of the subject that he's working
> in, rather than providing training along the way to people so that
> they can attempt to answer him. But, maybe not.

It's not at all obvious what exactly the "quadrant" of his subject is.  I
don't know if it is a general radio link or manchester decoding issue, or
something specific to the particular chips he is using.  If the former, I
can probably help, and already provided some information.  If the latter,
then I can't likely help, but that's not clear yet.  In other words, as
usual, we need clarification from the OP, some of which he should have
thought about and provided in his original message.  Your filling in and
apologizing for him isn't helping, since you don't really know any more
about what he wants than the rest of us.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.