On 25/11/2010 12:30, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> David Duffy (AVD) wrote:
>> On 25/11/2010 10:17 AM, Oli Glaser wrote:
>>> All the things that have been mentioned sound plausible - also, I'd
>>> maybe try pulling out the 47uF cap to see if it makes a difference.
>> I will try that after the test with adding a small value cap on MCLR.
> Why?  It's a silly idea.  There should be nothing wrong with a 47uF
> electrolytic cap on the power rail.  In fact it's a good idea.  Don't get
> sidetracked by superstition based electronics.  If you're going to do tha=
t,
> we all know waving a dead fish over it is more effective.
>

I already explained why - in case there was some issue with inrush=20
current, or the power rail rising too slowly. I did not know what else=20
was going on in the circuit, complexity, exactly how it was powered etc.
No superstition involved, and in any case sometimes it doesn't hurt to=20
try things, then worry about why afterwards.


--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.