Re: Simple Clockable Decoder Chip

On May 6, 9:35 pm, Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

People advised me about this. They said stuff like "if a bit of noise
gets onto...". The way I see it though, if I can't rely on electronics
then there's no point in me even trying to get things to work.

That's rich, coming from you.

Not really, in fact I think it's to be expected considering I'm a
novice at this stuff and I'm explicitly asking people's advice here on
what to do.

You could rely on electronics alright.  You would have to stop
*designing* them with such total, aggressive disregard to reliability,

Hypothetically speaking, if I couldn't rely on a counter incrementing
from 011 to 100, then why should I bother even trying to use it in a
design? This is what I'm trying to understand.

 It's become clear that you don't listen to any advice along
those lines.  That's your decision to make, sure, but that also makes
all advers consequences entirely your fault.  We did tell you so.

Well I'd hardly post entire threads here looking for advice if I was
going to disregard the responses.

I've left my current board on overnight for three nights in a row and
it was still synchronised.

How do you know it's "still" synchronized, as opposed to having rebooted
and re-synchronized itself 20 times (always while you weren't looking) over?

If the microcontroller were to reboot, then the LED matrix would be in
a totally different state. Alas, when after the three nights, the
display is exactly the way I left it.

Anyway, a test like that proves diddly-squat.  You have to stress it to
expose flaws.  Switch on a mobile phone directly on top of your device.
  Fire up a piezo lighter in different places.  Heat it.  Cool it.  Drop
it.  Flex it.  In short: let it see some abuse.

So are you advocating using two pins to control the shift register,
rather than one?