Timeline for Component Identification Question Guidelines
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2018 at 17:00 | comment | added | Passerby | Exactly, these questions, and circuit design in general, do not need to be 100% accurate to the part number. You can replace a given part with an equivalent part easily. | |
| Sep 10, 2018 at 13:37 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | It might be unrecognizable with respect to part number, but recognizable enough to narrow it down to a general type of component, which is educational in and of itself. For example, "this is most likely a bridge rectifier, as the circuit section you point to converts an AC mains voltage to a DC supply for your board. Typically, this involves.... | |
| Sep 10, 2018 at 13:31 | comment | added | W5VO Mod | My thoughts were that if the top of the package was blown off, it's unlikely that we will be able to identify the part number. There's a few questions that come through where someone has opened up their microwave and found a burned part and asked what it is to replace it. | |
| Sep 10, 2018 at 13:28 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | @Scott: That would help. Leaving off mention of parts being unrecognizable due to failure would help too. | |
| Sep 10, 2018 at 13:20 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | To your first point, would a change to "intentionally obfuscated" help? | |
| Sep 10, 2018 at 13:14 | history | answered | Olin Lathrop | CC BY-SA 4.0 |