AVR-Chat

Hi Tom,

Don't get us Peters mixed up now! (look at the column that says "Sender") :)

I could of attached a nice little schematic but that would of been 
filtered out and so we are left
with either a link to a webpage or inline ascii schematics. I'm only 
trying to be helpful but I really didn't want to spend any more time on 
supplying the details than I did. Usually I attempt some ascii 
schematics and this time it seemed ok just to supply it in a totally 
non-standard pseudo-netlist form.

Also, the circuit works well for it's intended use and allows firmware 
uploads/data downloads etc without having to have an external connector, 
which sometimes is not possible or desirable. Sometimes this circuit 
just sits on a PCB internal to the equipment, accessible only by 
technicians when there is some diagnostics or firmware uploads to do.

Finally, there is nothing safety-critical about the use of this coms 
circuit. Nobody is trying to reliably control any lump of equipment, big 
or small, with the lousy stream of photons emanating from this circuit. 
Practical does not mean all-encompassing, if a clothes peg keeps your 
washing on the line then it is practical for that purpose.

:) keep smiling

*Peter*



Thomas Keller wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 16:01 +1000, John Samperi wrote:
>  
>
>>At 03:14 PM 11/10/2005, you wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Shall we move on to British "earth" versus US "ground"?
>>>      
>>>
>>I believe 100R or whatever is an international standard
>>and has been so for a long time (20 years??)
>>    
>>
>
>   Ok that is possible, and makes sense to me.   I spent the better part
>of the past 20 years NOT being ionvolved directly in electronics, so I
>may have missed something.   Back in "the day," resistance values on
>schematics were indicated by either just a number (e.g., 10,000) or by a
>number followed by a lower case omega.  On rare occasions, some
>drafts-people would indicate with the number and the word "ohms."
>
>   I would like to note that I was not challanging Peter on that issue,
>I honestly didn't understant the notation, just as I didn't understand
>his schematic notation.
>
>Tom
>