| the mysterious data loss in BBRAM | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I just used the Dallas parts! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I've heard only praises to the Dallas chips, too.. | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I agree re Dallas | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| another method | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I don't understand | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| nah | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| ... I just would expect that.. | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| You are absolutely right, of course! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| You should dig deep when posting here! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| nope, but ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| But, what if your post is just wrong?? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| well, it was not | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| What has this to do with Jan's application?? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| everything | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| When you use a second supervisor chip, ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| it does - IF | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| For occasional writes you have the FLASH | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| this depends on application, too | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| But why?? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| early power fail interrupt ..... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| this is the purpose of reset | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Sadly, there's no guarantee it does that! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| ensure the same voltage on mcu and RAM/supervis | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| yeah, sure | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| OK, once more | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
given a proper ground and power plane ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I have to agree ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| this depends on application | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| There's room for doubt ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| thanks | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| sounds reasonably | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Pull-downs at inputs of battery powered CMOS-RAM | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Observation technique affects the outcome | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Some comments and two questions | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Designing a pre-test environment ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Eager to hear the results! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| You'll have to be patient ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Has anyone tried THIS? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
