Driver to drive?

[John Weston]

In article <Xns9BDDA922928D3451E7A@69.16.185.250>, "john" wrote:

What you describe is also my situation. At the moment I use a
Retell 156 in the curly lead and it's fine. Is that what you use?

Yes, that's the one. I had a problem with it because the Tx and RX
levels were incorrect for the French phone I was using. It's now in the
cupboard... I'm now using the 145 which plugs directly into the phone
socket using a supplied adaptor. (I plug mine into the back of a caller
display unit, which has an RJ11 line socket, so don't use the adaptor)
It doesn't have the playback to line facility, but it works better for
me.

The Uket supplier says he can attach it either to the handset curly
(as it says on the web page) or to the line cord. The line cord is
a bit surprising but I won't really know until I have tried. A
friend of mine had an adapter which looked identical in appearance
to the Uket one and it actually did work well when plugged into a
wall socket with his own cord.

It's possible, since they are high impedance devices. However, the
phone line is full duplex on one pair whereas the handset is Tx and Rx
on two pairs, typically.

(A) the pinout on the line cord's connector to the phone base.

(B) the pinout on either end of handset's curly lead.

Ther is no standard for the phone lead in the UK, AFAIK. Most do seem to
follow a similar layout, though. That's why they work with some phones
and not with others.

http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk/WPP/Wiring/UK_telephone/uk_telephone.
html

As for the curly cord, a couple of articles in the Wiki don't agree
about this.

The UK based manufacturers don't necessarily follow the USA practice as
outlined in Wiki.


--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

 

[Allan Herriman]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:12:58 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:47 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

[...]

That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no
tolerances, no monte carlos.

Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the
road but I don't gamble anyhow.

Oh, wait ...


You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..

Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more
conservative regions out here


Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources,
watch the price too. ...

That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced
(having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too
many purchasing nightmares there.

Technically single-sourced, yes. As long as you stay away from the
quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" , unique
features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute. The costs
have come *way* down, as well. $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these
days.


That's true, but a lot of times my whole design including board and
assembly can't cost nearly as much as that (in large quantities).

No, FPGAs aren't the right answer for every question but you're not
going to buy that function, or anything near it, for less. We have a
pile of crap logic that I'd *love* to sweep into a FPGA. It would save
a lot of money and grief. If I was convinced I could do a decent delta
sigma modulator I'd do even more.

D-S dacs work just fine in FPGAs. They're especially handy for slow
trims, like dc offset, vcxo freq, stuff like that. One FPGA pin and one
external RC makes a pretty good dac.

John

I've used external CMOS buffers to give a noise-free Voh for this
application. FPGA outputs can have quite a lot of noise on them, coupled
from other outputs on the same bank. (The numbers vary from family to
family, etc.)

Regards,
Allan

 

[John Larkin]

On 30 Mar 2009 09:48:25 GMT, Allan Herriman
<allanherriman@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:12:58 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:47 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

[...]

That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no
tolerances, no monte carlos.

Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the
road but I don't gamble anyhow.

Oh, wait ...


You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..

Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more
conservative regions out here


Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources,
watch the price too. ...

That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced
(having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too
many purchasing nightmares there.

Technically single-sourced, yes. As long as you stay away from the
quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" , unique
features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute. The costs
have come *way* down, as well. $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these
days.


That's true, but a lot of times my whole design including board and
assembly can't cost nearly as much as that (in large quantities).

No, FPGAs aren't the right answer for every question but you're not
going to buy that function, or anything near it, for less. We have a
pile of crap logic that I'd *love* to sweep into a FPGA. It would save
a lot of money and grief. If I was convinced I could do a decent delta
sigma modulator I'd do even more.

D-S dacs work just fine in FPGAs. They're especially handy for slow
trims, like dc offset, vcxo freq, stuff like that. One FPGA pin and one
external RC makes a pretty good dac.

John

I've used external CMOS buffers to give a noise-free Voh for this
application. FPGA outputs can have quite a lot of noise on them, coupled
from other outputs on the same bank. (The numbers vary from family to
family, etc.)

Regards,
Allan

A delta-sigma dac needs a ton of lowpass filtering anyhow, so the only
noise that matters is slow stuff on the +3.3 rail, which is usually
easy to control. Most fpga's bank Vcc_out anyhow, so only the "dac
bank" supply needs to be quiet at low frequencies.

John

 

[Joel Koltner]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:s8cts4d6jcmvbk2tu3cd3tua362o6gtde7@4ax.com...

We did some playing with FPGA-based PLLs. The classic charge-pump PDs
didn't work very well. This works...

Nice. What PFD frequency was the FPGA running at?

No deadband, fast as all getout, low phase noise.

And certainly cheaper than purchasing a separate PLL IC if you already need an
FPGA.

---Joel

 

[rickman]

On Mar 30, 10:05 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On 30 Mar 2009 09:48:25 GMT, Allan Herriman



allanherri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:12:58 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:48 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:47 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

[...]

That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no
tolerances, no monte carlos.

Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the
road but I don't gamble anyhow.

Oh, wait ...

You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..

Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more
conservative regions out here

Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources,
watch the price too. ...

That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced
(having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too
many purchasing nightmares there.

Technically single-sourced, yes.  As long as you stay away from the
quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" , unique
features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute.  The costs
have come *way* down, as well.  $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these
days.

That's true, but a lot of times my whole design including board and
assembly can't cost nearly as much as that (in large quantities).

No, FPGAs aren't the right answer for every question but you're not
going to buy that function, or anything near it, for less.  We have a
pile of crap logic that I'd *love* to sweep into a FPGA.  It would save
a lot of money and grief.  If I was convinced I could do a decent delta
sigma modulator I'd do even more.

D-S dacs work just fine in FPGAs. They're especially handy for slow
trims, like dc offset, vcxo freq, stuff like that. One FPGA pin and one
external RC makes a pretty good dac.

John

I've used external CMOS buffers to give a noise-free Voh for this
application.  FPGA outputs can have quite a lot of noise on them, coupled
from other outputs on the same bank.  (The numbers vary from family to
family, etc.)

Regards,
Allan

A delta-sigma dac needs a ton of lowpass filtering anyhow, so the only
noise that matters is slow stuff on the +3.3 rail, which is usually
easy to control. Most fpga's bank Vcc_out anyhow, so only the "dac
bank" supply needs to be quiet at low frequencies.

I have found that digital noise on an analog component can be a very
*real* problem. It is surprising where noise can come from. A
component I was using turned out to have 0 dB of PSRR. It wasn't in
the data sheet and I didn't think to ask. I only found out because
there was a problem with buzzing in the output at certain times. When
all the troubleshooting was done, the source turned out to be power
supply noise. When the DSP was in the code to pass data to the
output, it was in a loop at 300 Hz and the difference in power
consumption between the wait loop and the "move data" loop was
creating 10 mV of 300 Hz noise on the power rail. I suppose that
would not be an issue if I wasn't using a crappy part. Still, with a
VCO you need to be very careful about having a clean power supply. It
doesn't take much to put noise of all frequencies on the rails and
once there, it is hard to clean up... although I did find that a 1000
uF capacitor can do wonders at 300 Hz.

Rick

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:09:09 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:s8cts4d6jcmvbk2tu3cd3tua362o6gtde7@4ax.com...
We did some playing with FPGA-based PLLs. The classic charge-pump PDs
didn't work very well. This works...

Nice. What PFD frequency was the FPGA running at?

No deadband, fast as all getout, low phase noise.

And certainly cheaper than purchasing a separate PLL IC if you already need an
FPGA.

---Joel

Most recent case, we're locking a 128 MHz VCXO to an external 10 MHz
reference, so we divided both down to 2 MHz. This phase detector gave
us a lot less phase noise and phase error than any of the classic
charge-pumps we tried to fake.

Given that there's some overlap designed into the up/down blips, the
loop gain is higher (2x) in the overlap region than farther from zero
phase error.

John

 

[krw]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:12:58 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:02:47 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:38:26 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

[...]

That is the nice thing about digital processing, no trimmers, no tolerances,
no monte carlos.

Don't need Monte Carlo, there's an Indian gambling place down the road
but I don't gamble anyhow.

Oh, wait ...


You may want an FPGA with onboard flash..

Flash? That's frowned upon as morally indecent in the more conservative
regions out here


Just make sure you can actually get the chips from several sources, watch
the price too. ...

That's the two main problems. FPGA are usually all single-sourced
(having several distributors doesn't count) and expensive. Seen too many
purchasing nightmares there.

Technically single-sourced, yes. As long as you stay away from the
quirks (LVDS performance can be considered a "quirk" , unique
features, and IP cores, they're pretty easy to substitute. The costs
have come *way* down, as well. $5-$20 buys a lot of logic these days.


That's true, but a lot of times my whole design including board and
assembly can't cost nearly as much as that (in large quantities).

No, FPGAs aren't the right answer for every question but you're not
going to buy that function, or anything near it, for less. We have a
pile of crap logic that I'd *love* to sweep into a FPGA. It would
save a lot of money and grief. If I was convinced I could do a decent
delta sigma modulator I'd do even more.

D-S dacs work just fine in FPGAs. They're especially handy for slow
trims, like dc offset, vcxo freq, stuff like that. One FPGA pin and
one external RC makes a pretty good dac.

I'm looking to replace a 16bit (24bit but don't believe the specs)
audio codec.

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:23:21 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:40:34 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

SNIP


The theory of AGW is also based on observational data. Even sceptical
scientists admit that it is not possible to balance the global energy
equations for the Earth after about 1970 without including GHG forcing.
Crucially we have satellite data of the solar flux so you cannot
magically handwave away the recent warming trend by pretending that the
sun somehow got brighter.

I've been arguing for a while that the solar minimum would lead to
cooler climate.

Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view....B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

/quote

B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23

1. Scope of Program

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that
marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are
recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily
quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in
records of both solar activity and the response to it of the
terrestrial space environment. For example:
Causes – Solar output


* Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was
created in 1947;
* Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the
beginning of the Space age;
* Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the
current solar minimum;
* Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum
of Solar Cycle 22;
* Effectively no sunspots;
* The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer
belt; and
* Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.

/end quote

SNIP

And another NASA acknowledgement of the change in solar activity:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

/quote

pril 1, 2009: The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock
market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's
366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go
all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted
by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had
hit bottom in 2008.

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of
March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%).

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very
deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard
Space Flight Center.

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees
sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

/end quote

/quote

"Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been
generally high," notes Hathaway. "Five of the ten most intense solar
cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We're just not
used to this kind of deep calm."

/end quote

The solid block of 5 intense cyclessince the 1950s correlates with
AGW. Shucks we must be to blame for the intense cycles, excess CO2 is
leaking into space and upseting the sun.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:31:41 GMT, h@h.net wrote:

I've decided to build, for personal use, a waveform generator based on the
AD5930. I'll be able to adjust the output over a 50mv to 20 VPP range - my
question is how do I measure the amplitude of the output with any precision?

DVM? Oscilloscope? RF voltmeter?

I can either measure (peak detector) the output or control it. For the
second option, I'm thinking about using a TI VCA810, driven by an DAC, which
has a gain adjust range of +- 40dB. The first option is easy to implement,
however it suffers from a lack of accuracy - especially over the frequency
and amplitude range I want to cover. The second option looks the most
attractive; however it also has it's drawbacks (gain is linear with dB - NOT
v/v - so I'll have to try to do Logs in ASM on a micro <sigh&gt - my primary
goal is the accuracy of the measurement. So, any suggestions? Is there an
option that I'm overlooking? Thanks for the help...

The ADI part has an amplitude adjust pin... why not use it? You could
follow it with a step attenuator to make the really tiny signals.

John

 

[Martin Riddle]

"RST Engineering (jw)" <jim@rstengineering.com> wrote in message
news:tLKdnT-EyLyhaErUnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@supernews.com...

"Martin Riddle" <martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dHRBl.1590$6n.366@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...



Tools->Macro->Visual basic editor
Then you should select ThisWorkbook and past your code

It should work then.


I'm sorry, sir, and I appreciate the help, but there is no
"ThisWorkbook" command in Tools->Macro->Visual Basic Editor. That was
the instruction that somebody gave me last time and I've been on and
off fiddling with it for about six months.

Can you be a bit more specific (Excel 2003)?

Jim

Sorry maybe I was not clear.

To open the VBA Editor, Tools->Macro->Visual basic editor
Then in the VBA editor select 'ThisWorkbook' in the Left pane.
This applies to Office 2003. As mentioned Alt+F11 is the short cut to
the VBA editor.

Cheers

 

[RST Engineering (jw)]

"Tom" <Tom@nospam.com> wrote in message news:49d7f9a0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

RST Engineering (jw) wrote:
"Martin Riddle" <martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dHRBl.1590$6n.366@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...



Go into Visual Basic Editor, via the menu as someone said or just press
Alt-F11. You'll see This Workbook on left top panel.

Tom

No, Tom, sorry, that's just not so. Are you using Excel 2003?

Jim

 

[RST Engineering (jw)]

I'm sorry, sir, and I appreciate the help, but there is no "ThisWorkbook"
command in Tools->Macro->Visual Basic Editor. That was the instruction
that somebody gave me last time and I've been on and off fiddling with it
for about six months.

Can you be a bit more specific (Excel 2003)?

Jim


Sorry maybe I was not clear.

To open the VBA Editor, Tools->Macro->Visual basic editor
Then in the VBA editor select 'ThisWorkbook' in the Left pane.
This applies to Office 2003. As mentioned Alt+F11 is the short cut to the
VBA editor.

Martin & Tom


There is no "Left Pane" when I open up the VB editor. THere is a gray
screen and two lines of commands along the top. THe top one is the usual
"File Edit View ..." and below that there is a toolbar with icons. No Left
Pane.

Jim

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:37:38 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Command of the Queen's English?

BBC headline...

"Israelis shoot dead armed woman"

Isn't it poor taste to shoot someone who's already dead ?

...Jim Thompson

And just plain cruel to shoot someone whose arms are dead.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Jim Thompson wrote:

Command of the Queen's English?

BBC headline...

"Israelis shoot dead armed woman"

Isn't it poor taste to shoot someone who's already dead ?

...Jim Thompson

The live armed ones might shoot back.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:27:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:26:28 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:47:07 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:36:29 -0800, "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com
wrote:


"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:fcdft4l36gffd28rfoo84cimafv6sn0alf@4ax.com...
Command of the Queen's English?

BBC headline...

"Israelis shoot dead armed woman"

Isn't it poor taste to shoot someone who's already dead ?

...Jim Thompson

Maybe they just wanted to be sure she was dead, you know, take no chances.
It sounds like she had both of her arms though.

Maybe they were San Diego cops. They are trained to dump their entire
clip in your ass.

You deserved it.


Sorry, KiethKeithStain, I have never been introduced to lead internally.

You certainly have all the symptoms.

You, on the other hand, obviously have, considering your brain dead
posts.

I'm not AlwaysWrong, DimBulb.

 

[Nutz]

<richard.rowell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e08b0419-bd24-4aee-bfe8-84bb4543bddc@z15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

I ripped apart an HP printer and on the back of the carraige that the
moved the print heads around was an encoder and a 400 LPI encoder
strip. The encoder is labeled H9721P. I can not find a datasheet for
it, but there are only 4 pins. I'm guessing one is power, another is
ground, then two sensor outputs. I'm curious if the is any way to
determine what pins are what?

http://rowell.info/~richard/h9721P-front.jpg
http://rowell.info/~richard/h9721P-back.jpg

It looks like C2 connects pin 2 to pin 4 (if you count the pins from
left to right as viewed on the "front" image)

TIA!

By convention pin 1 often has a square pad. Is your pin 1 really pin 1?

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:24:29 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Any tricks?

When you prep the shield area, remove a layer or two at the fold point.
Then when you fold it back it will have less overall volume to shove
inside the fitting's crimp area.

 

[Martin Riddle]

"RST Engineering (jw)" <jim@rstengineering.com> wrote in message
news4ednemBduDwi0XUnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@supernews.com...

I'm sorry, sir, and I appreciate the help, but there is no
"ThisWorkbook" command in Tools->Macro->Visual Basic Editor. That
was the instruction that somebody gave me last time and I've been on
and off fiddling with it for about six months.

Can you be a bit more specific (Excel 2003)?

Jim


Sorry maybe I was not clear.

To open the VBA Editor, Tools->Macro->Visual basic editor
Then in the VBA editor select 'ThisWorkbook' in the Left pane.
This applies to Office 2003. As mentioned Alt+F11 is the short cut
to the VBA editor.


Martin & Tom


There is no "Left Pane" when I open up the VB editor. THere is a gray
screen and two lines of commands along the top. THe top one is the
usual "File Edit View ..." and below that there is a toolbar with
icons. No Left Pane.

Jim

In VBA select View->ProjectExplorer. This is the left pane we are
referencing.
its usually shown by default.
It'll Show VBAProject (Book1)... and the list of Sheets(Sheet1
Sheet2....) and ThisWorkbook.
Double click on ThisWorkbook and the code window will display.

Cheers

 

[ehsjr]

RST Engineering (jw) wrote:

I'm sorry, sir, and I appreciate the help, but there is no "ThisWorkbook"
command in Tools->Macro->Visual Basic Editor. That was the instruction
that somebody gave me last time and I've been on and off fiddling with it
for about six months.

Can you be a bit more specific (Excel 2003)?

Jim


Sorry maybe I was not clear.

To open the VBA Editor, Tools->Macro->Visual basic editor
Then in the VBA editor select 'ThisWorkbook' in the Left pane.
This applies to Office 2003. As mentioned Alt+F11 is the short cut to the
VBA editor.



Martin & Tom


There is no "Left Pane" when I open up the VB editor. THere is a gray
screen and two lines of commands along the top. THe top one is the usual
"File Edit View ..." and below that there is a toolbar with icons. No Left
Pane.

Jim

There's a bunch of icons on the tool bar in the VB editor.
One of them says Project Explorer when you slide the cursor
onto it. Click that.

I'll send you an Email with an attached screenshot.

Ed

 

[RST Engineering (jw)]

FOUND IT. GOT IT. INSTALLED IT.

It doesn't do anything. WHere do we go from here? I used both characters
(Y) and numerical characters (1.00) in the target cell and it still printed
that page quite nicely. I used null ("") in my IF statement for pages I
didn't want to print and it printed THAT page quite nicely as well.

Jim

--

In VBA select View->ProjectExplorer. This is the left pane we are
referencing.
its usually shown by default.
It'll Show VBAProject (Book1)... and the list of Sheets(Sheet1 Sheet2....)
and ThisWorkbook.
Double click on ThisWorkbook and the code window will display.

Cheers