> On Oct 25, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > wrote: > > > > On 10/25/18 9:48 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: >> >> >> On 10/25/18 9:18 AM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote: >>> Now that I think about it, a flying probe may be easier for us hobbyists to >>> construct. The trick will be getting sufficient x/y resolution and not >>> having the two probes interfere when the two probes are close to each other. >>> >> >> I hadn't thought about that. >> Two probes, one on the front and one on the back of the board... >> No interference. > > you could use two of these > > https://shop.evilmadscientist.com/productsmenu/846 > > Very cool! TTFN - Guy
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist? Eric Schlaepfer via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist? Guy Dunphy via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool e... Al Kossow via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist? Jon Elson via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool e... Chuck Guzis via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA to... Jon Elson via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering ED... Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineerin... Al Kossow via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineerin... Al Kossow via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engin... Al Kossow via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-e... Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool e... Guy Dunphy via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA to... Christian Corti via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA to... Al Kossow via cctalk
- Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist? r.stricklin via cctalk