Dear Dover, To ask a question or to wonder is not to "trivialize". The basis for learning is questions and answers. That's about all I can say to you that is not vitriolic. I would hope that JP appreciates the fact that my earlier post meant him no disrespect at all. In fact, I am rather amazed at his work, since failure of the MN6042 has been the downfall of many Mk3s.
Dear JP, I now see that you did in fact respond to my question about the accuracy of your circuit vs that of the MN6042. Sometimes these threads move too rapidly for me to be current. I did wonder whether 262.XXX kHz was the operative number or whether it was the much higher frequency that gets divided to yield 262.XXX kHz. Now I know it is the latter, which enhances the significance of the difference between your circuit and that of the MN6042. What's additionally appealing about your circuit is the fact that if it ever should fail, it's fixable with parts that are readily available.
Dear JP, I now see that you did in fact respond to my question about the accuracy of your circuit vs that of the MN6042. Sometimes these threads move too rapidly for me to be current. I did wonder whether 262.XXX kHz was the operative number or whether it was the much higher frequency that gets divided to yield 262.XXX kHz. Now I know it is the latter, which enhances the significance of the difference between your circuit and that of the MN6042. What's additionally appealing about your circuit is the fact that if it ever should fail, it's fixable with parts that are readily available.