> True.
> But the probability of the above set of sequences occurring randomly
> is 0.0000 ... =A0to more 0's than you'd care to count.
>
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "slight voltage shift"
>
> English OK BUT would ~ never be put that way.
>
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "cause big current change" and
>
> Same.
>
>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "(burn out will happen)"
>
> Quaint.
>
> Meanings in all cases are clear enough. Language is very unusual. All
> 3 in close sequence "would not happen". Especially so in datasheets
> where they have no meaning at all, as is the case in some of them.
>

>From time to time someone explains to a newbie on this list that
direct current flowing in a conductor is directly proportional to the
potential difference between its ends. Search with direct current
flowing in a conductor is directly proportional to the potential
difference between its ends. You'll find hundreds links to texts with
the exact phrase or its close variations. Does it mean the list
plagiarise any of the sources? I don't think so :-)

>
> I have no interest in ownership of the text per se. It's a convenient
> marker for other activity.
> The point was not really who "owned" the text but that there was
> utterly vast cut and pasting of text amongst quite unrelated
> datasheets.

Using the phrase "proof enough of plagiarism" when talking about some
business (writing datasheets) is the point.that could be taken
seriously.


> ANY datasheet that contains that sequence merits careful examination.
> Indeed, the one I first found it in is clearly questionable
> technically in its own right.
>

Sure.

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