| ??? 09/12/06 18:04 Read: times |
#124143 - not necessarily for long Responding to: ???'s previous message |
noticed that there was no 0V connected to the 89C52!! Works a treat now!
Not necessarily for long. One problem with such problems is that while it may seem that all is well, often the chip has been 'prepared' for early failure. This, of course is not a problem for a proto (if it fails, it is in your hand), but, for "to ship" units, a chip exposed to such 'abuse' should be replaced. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| P0 not low enough (0.85V) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not useful? Overrated?? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Diodes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A path to GND would still be needed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| paths to GND might be fatal | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks for the tip | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Rather low ohmic path | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if that is so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| P0 - all's well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another Thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Richard, I hope you are well now | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not necessarily for long | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Aware of that! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Isn't this whole thing rather silly? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| good practice, Richard... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nooooooo... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Newbies aren't rigorous! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That\'s one place where we can help them! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| still glad I posted this one! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| it's maybe better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It's a silly mistake, but one we've all made! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
the definition of experience: | 01/01/70 00:00 |