I seem to rememeber you kept insisting that it doesnt need to be designed, just put in the same one as beforfe, which means the old, mechnical and possibly unreliable design. This was in response to people who said that it would have to be designed in.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Not quite, I stated that it could be done a number of > Ways today. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Gonz > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > heck of course. it could use the same mechanism as an optical shaft > encoder. but JCO's talking about the same design as in the past, not an > > entirely new design. > > rg > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>On 12/10/06, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>>No because you have springs, tiny parts, a variable resistor with its >>>own tiny linkage and the pot brush arm that depends on friction but > > not > >>>too much that it would wipe out the resistive surface. >> >> >>Tech now would make it cheaper to implement in an opto-mechanical >>non-contact sealed unit. >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
