it sounds like you will be changing enough to avoid copyright problems, including credit to the book would be a good idea(experiment adapted from ...) give enough info so someone can try to find the book themselves.
[quote author="nowait"]I think the problem was that I needed to add a resistor to the input of the transistor to limit the base-emmiter current. [/quote]
electronics/computer stores are known for the very noisy environments they display products. the have no concern in reducing any of the noise, only in selling you expensive merch.
as for the noise unless you plan to bring your own Faraday cage i can't think of anything to help improve the issue. however if you can put test images and video on the monitors and compare them side by side, I would trust your eyes, and stick with manufacturers that have a good reputation.
chances that the Poly/Mylar cap is good, unless there is one with identical markings to compare with. the little "bulge" on top is caused by the way it is manufactured, it is dipped in an liquid insulator and dried leaving traces of dripping excess insulator.
this looks like an adsl modem(please correct if wrong) they are fairly inexpensive, and at 5 years age it may be a good idea to take this opportunity to upgrade it. my isp was not upgrading 10 year old hardware after multiple requests, and paying for bandwidth the hardware was incapable of reaching. needless to say the $5/mo equipment charge could have upgraded it once a year. so i bought my own, and filed complaint with FCC.
[quote author="Zeta"]About a year ago, when I was about to build my own bus pirate I noticed the Mic5205 and ceramc caps in the buspirate schematics and asked about it.
Ian said that seed actually don't use the mic5205 parts but they have their own china-made parts that don't have this problem. So BPs from Seed should not have the oscilating output.
The official documentation on dangerousprototypes still shows the mic5205 with ceramic caps. It would be better if it showed a mic5255 (or better yet a regulator that can take any cap ESR) instead so sparkfun and other builders avoid this kind of problems.[/quote]
every new spin of a board may introduce it's own problems, it may be a better idea to list just the basic requirement of the regulators and specify a capacitance/current range that the regulators must be able to tolerate.
also 2 of the 3 regulators have no "set in stone" current requirements, making it hard to predict the actual capacitance that the user will need for the regulators output to be clean. it may be worth while to include an extra generic capacitor footprint available for the user to (de)populate if needed
[quote author="vimark"]Layout is nice thank you, would it be sufficient if we remove c5 cause c6 could do the filtering by itself?
Layout is nice *thank you Edit: Sorry for the typo[/quote]
I would keep both, if i could i'd put them even closer to the pins I would, one is the internal regulator output, the other is vccio they are help full in reducing noise between the ftdi and pic
[quote author="arakis"]Hi, up to v3.5 we used Vias with the D+ D- crosing each others' paths (uunderneathe) .. In V3,6 we fixed this with having one trace go around the SSOP pins... This makes one longer then the other, but there are no Vias on the Data traces, and no path crossing...
Do you thing we should revert to 3.5 layeout (Via's and path crossing), or keep 3.6 (longer lenght), which will produce less usb noise in the power supply.[/quote]
The V3.6 has a little more board room from the switch to the SOB board size. keeping same component count but isolating the ground around the connector routing bolth usb lines under the ic, and using the internal regulator to power the ftdi chip would also help isolate noise from the rest of the circuit.
I have a few free hours today, ill download the board files and see what can be done without major changes.