Talk:Latch (electronics)

message: Wouldn't using don't cares for the two truth tables make more sense than what's currently there? I mean, I don't want to go ahead, edit them in, and have someone get confused and complain. mm..but
EDIT: Gah, forgot to sign--Sporkot 03:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Care conditions in the truth table?  

message: hi, i'm not sure how to do this, but can one if you make RS Latch (and the other kinds of latches this page mentions) link to this one when searching? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.32.77.56 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguations 

message: I disagree that the SR latch is the most fundamental latch.  Clearly the cross-coupled inverters used in SRAM cells are even simpler.   If you want to get into dynamic circuits, you don't need any feedback at all. 142.59.195.50 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The most fundamental latch" 

message: latch is just a register which stores data output of prevoius segments and provide input for next segments —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.83.169.218 (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shakeel abbas qau 

message: I added a brief line with the characteristic equation for an SR latch.  I thought it was pretty important.  I doubt it meets quality guidelines, but I put a link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.57.120 (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SR latch characteristic 

message: "A synchronous SR latch (sometimes clocked SR flip-flop) can be made by adding a second level of NAND gates to the inverted SR latch (or a second level of NOR gates to the direct SR latch)." The description does not match the circuit shown below. There are no NAND gates anywhere.
The symbol for the SR NAND latch is invisible. It should be replaced or eliminated. As it is, it's useless.
ICE77 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections to be made 

message: Anyone care to put in a real graphic (instead of the ascii-gram) to show an Earle latch?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.123.154 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earle latch? 

message: Would anyone object to having Qnext replaced with Q in the diagram below? I would find it clearer and easier to read that way so that we can understand when Q is changed. --Sbluen (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Qnext should also be removed for the JK Latch. Glrx (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gated T latch diagram 

message: I have moved the introductory part of Flip-flop to this article and rearranged the two articles guided by the considerations below.
* Flip-flop and latch are not the same; so, they deserve separate pages (as it is).
* Flip-flop and latch are closely related; so, the two pages have to be closely related as well.
* The latch precedes chronologically the flip-flop.
* Eccles and Jordan have invented a latch, not a flip-flop; so, the data about their patent have to be placed on Latch.
* The fundamental bistable circuit is simpler than a latch and the latch is simpler than a flip-flop; so, the fundamental bistable circuit has to be inserted in the introductory part of Latch.
* The flip-flop is based on the latch; it is built by one or more latches; so, Flip-flop is a continuation of Latch.
I would be glad if you appreciate my efforts to solve the problems connected with the distribution of the contents between the two pages. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 22:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging "Latch" and "Flip-flop" articles 

message: I am glad to see that you have arrived at the decision to merge the two pages since it actually was my idea. As you can see, I have only distributed the existing contents between the two pages and structured them to prepare the ground for future merging (if we decide to do it). Now the two pages are tidy, well structured and intelligible. The fundamental idea is revealed in the beginning of Latch and then its evolution is shown in a logical succession: basic bistable circuit -> "direct" RS latches -> gated latches -> ... then it continues in Flip-flop ... -> edge-triggered flip-flops -> pulse-triggered flip-flops. Now, we have only to insert the contents of latch page in the beginning of flip-flop one and to generalize the lede to obtain the desired common page (latch should be redirected to flip-flop). 
Of course, it is obvious for everyone that now latches and flip-flops are unnaturally separated in these two pages; they are only different stages of the humble Eccles-Jordan bistable circuit in the stairs of its evolution. But we have somehow to distribute the content about all these memory circuits into separate pages because it is too large for one page. So, I have started with the existing organization - each circuit in its own page, subordinating the latch to flip-flop page. But this is only one possible (not so bad) way of presentation.
The alternative approach (suggested above) can be realized as a set of one main and a few subordinated pages. The main flip-flop article should contain only essential data about fundamental bistable circuit and to show (in the succession above) the typical flip-flop implementations. The specific circuit solutions should be shown in the separate subpages. Thus the main page will reveal the fundamental ideas behind flip-flops and the subpages will show their specific implementations (see for example op-amp applications). 
I hope you realize how arduous this undertaking is. It can be implemented by creative, thinking and conscientious wikipedians behaving positively; but I do not see such persons here. Instead, I see exactly the opposite - wikipedians that brutally blank, remove and revert without any comments large blocks of text revealing the fundamental ideas behind circuits...
I was rather impressed by wikipedians (some of them anonymous) having a talk more than a year ago. There are valuable thoughts, generalizations and philosophy in their discussions that can be inserted in the articles. Such kind of people can implement this ambiguous undertaking... but they keep silence for now... Maybe new people will join this undertaking... Till then the reorganized articles about latches and flip-flops can serve as a better basis for further improving (merging, splitting, whatever...) than the previous eclectic "mess". Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 11:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "mess" is restored again... 

message: I just found this page (result of a Google search) and notice the "Talk (Latch)" is separate from the "Talk (Flip-Flop)", even though "Latch" redirects to "Flip-Flop".  Latch has 12 topics, while Flip-Flop has 54.  Should they be combined?  How is this generally handle on WP? Jimw338 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Talk (Latch) and Talk (Flip-Flop) be combined?