« first day (2635 days earlier)      last day (797 days later) » 

Ian Tompkins
Ian Tompkins
01:06
I have a question that was put on hold and I can't figure out why
@NickAlexeev
Ian Tompkins
Ian Tompkins
01:18
@NickAlexeev @w5vo, @Clabacchio, @DaveTweed
My question was put on hold for being repair related, but it remains an identification question whether I were performing a repair or not appears to me to be irrelevant. I have a component on a board which I can't identify and am looking to get advice on how to identify it, or what it is, I have specified a package size, given added context, a clear photo of the component, and a clear photo of the component's board, and other information. From my circuit analysis, it appears it may be one of possibly several faulty components, so it may need to b…
 
3 hours later…
Nick Alexeev
Nick Alexeev
04:17
@IanTompkins Do you have a schematic? Do you understand the function of the circuit or component?
Nope.
Repair questions require a lot of back & forth hypothesis testing. We actually see that in your question: it's a tapestry of comments and edits. By itself, that's alright. That's a normal course of things.
But a large amount of back & forth doesn't mesh well with the format of StackExchange.
Our EE.SE chat is a lot more conducive to back & forth discussions. There's plenty of active an knowledgeable people participate in the chat.
So, next time you have a repair or identification question, please take it to our EE.SE chat. Repair and identification questions work really well there.
 
10 hours later…
Ian Tompkins
Ian Tompkins
14:01
@NickAlexeev But I don't want back and forth and didn't intend to generate back and forth. I wanted more experienced people to help identify one individual SOT-363 component. No repair involved, and it was flagged as a repair, I responded to other commenters questions as they were produced. I followed the guidelines here electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6710/…
Ian Tompkins
Ian Tompkins
14:21
The guidelines that the community voted on for identification questions do not require a schematic or an understanding of the circuit. The guidelines include the following suggestions:
" Show a schematic if you have it, or a tracing of the PCB traces if possible." (no indication this is mandatory) and
"Include any information about the surrounding circuit, or any knowledge on the type of system your component came from. " (Which I did to the best of my ability and is now being considered off topic?)
Nick Alexeev
Nick Alexeev
15:11
> I would like to replace it as part of the diagnostic process, but I can't identify it... [emphasis mine, N.A.]
This is a repair question.
> I wanted more experienced people to help identify...
You're welcome to post the inquiries to the main EE.SE chat, if you want experienced people to help you with identification.
> But I don't want back and forth and didn't intend to generate back and forth.
Nobody's saying that you've done it with malice aforethought. This happens naturally. That's why repair questions are restricted.
clabacchio
clabacchio
16:03
@IanTompkins Just to inform you, this is a matter of discussion among us mods, we are sorting it out
(not the topic itself but the closure of your question)
@IanTompkins I'm saying this to not confuse you, you're not at fault here
Ian Tompkins
Ian Tompkins
Thank you. I have gotten a bunch more info on the circuit, and the suggestion from one of the commenders that it is a dual inverter was a step in the right direction, I'm working on a circuit diagram now that I understand the circuit better. I took some confirmatory measures by pulling a more easily identified component (with code "CDK" SOT-363) from the same oscillator circuit in another Wacom product of the same generation.
@clabacchio I can remove all references to repair in my question if that simplifies things as, in my view, it's tangential information. (I have confirmed that this is the faulty component in the bad boards btw, so my desire to accurately identify it has moved beyond mere curiosity...)
 
3 hours later…
Ian Tompkins
Ian Tompkins
19:35
You can feel free to close that topic btw, it is now resolved.

« first day (2635 days earlier)      last day (797 days later) »