| ??? 06/27/06 06:40 Read: times |
#119173 - Beer o'clock Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Sorry but isn't it standard practice to put a low value cap say around .001 ufd across a switch to help debounce then handle the rest in software. Seems the goal of this thread is to do away with the cap? I used cap then cleanup code with my own app. Maybe I was wrong? |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Multiple switch debouncing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Otherways | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Vertical counters | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| vertical conters in C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| vertical counter with press detection | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| debounce and denoise needed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You are right of course, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Reminds me... (off topic) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| XRL P2,A | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| some hair-splitting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| exchange | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanx Kai ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| my way | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| exactly! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Spot on. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two samples enough? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| varies with design | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Conditional executing versus branching | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| KEY RELEASE SUBROUTINE ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not really... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a TOTAL misconception or -very annoying | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| He does not | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Beer o'clock | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, good idea | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| never did, never will | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Agree | 01/01/70 00:00 |