Andy Green wrote: > Yeah, waving hands about RF in cans is not understanding: pretty sure > about it.
I think we all would be much more comfortable about our understanding of the situation if someone could identify the actual contamination path. It's one thing to identify violations of good design practice (and to avoid them in the future), but to debug an actual problem, we can only be sure the true root cause has been found if we have the complete story, or at least a plausible theory for every step. This, by the way, also applies to the SD vs. GPS interaction. We now have what I believe is a thorough understanding of what gets emitted and how to silence it, but we never identified where this gets picked up and causes trouble. If this is an over-the-air path, we'll know that we'll have to expect similar issues in the future, and that we have to provide appropriate countermeasures. But if it's just a poorly routed trace, then hardening future designs against over-the-air contamination would be of limited use and might draw attention from more deserving areas. Now, I'm not suggesting to reopen the GPS noise investigation, but I would very much like to see an explanation for how and where the RF noise "received" by the audio jack jumps into the mic signal even after all components actually connecting the traces have been removed. - Werner _______________________________________________ hardware mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/hardware
