N. T. wrote:
> I meant my remark in the sense of the post they were in reply to, that
> is "In reality, PICs and most other digital logic can tolerate a
> output tied to the opposite rail without getting damaged, at least for
> a few seconds."

Yes, that is my statement that you then responded to saying that PIC are
"current limited".  That is misleading at best, outright wrong at worst,
regardless of whatever context the reader is supposed to assume.

What additional information was your statement of "current limited" suppose=
d
to convey?  All one could take from my statement and your addition is that
the reason PICs can tolerate such a short is because there is a current
limiting mechanism in place, which in turn makes it sound OK.  Neither is
true, as I already elaborated in my first response to your assertion of
current limiting.

General advice:  When you make a public blunder like this, trying to save
face to not look stupid has the opposite effect.  Anyone can make a mistake=
,
and if you say something like "Oops, sorry for the confusion", it is quickl=
y
forgotten without too much of a mental red mark for too long by your name i=
n
most people's minds.  By protesting, you draw attention to the error,
causing what was perhaps a small oops to become a major public stupidity.
There are now more people likely to think much longer that "N.T. doesn't ge=
t
current limiting", than if you'd handled this with less fuss.  If you don't
want to make it even worse, it would be wise to let it go here.


********************************************************************
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
.