wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (06/07/85)
I have been hearing and reading disturbing things about electronic components simply "wearing out" from use, or circuit designs which use batteries for volatile ROMs and which will become useless after some period of time unless deliberately maintained. The former example includes a recent net.audio posting about the laser assembly in a CD player having to be replaced after 5 years or so of use, and the latter includes the control programming for the ICOM (and other brands) of shortwave receivers and amateur equipment, wherein an on-board battery must stay alive to keep a ROM programmed to keep the radio in operable condition. This troubles me. I had thought that we had a reasonable progression of development of electronics during these days of solid-state gear replacing tube equipment that meant longer life for any device. LED's with essentially eternal lives replaced easily-burned-out incandescent lamps. Transistors replaced tubes, and ICs and VLSI replaced discrete components, and, assuming weeding out infant mortality and no actual damage to the circuit, like overvoltage, it should continue to operate indefinitely. Dipped caps replaced paper ones, etc. But now I see that designers either deliberately build in inevitable failures (the use of volatile ROMs and batteries instead of PROMs or other permanent devices) or the solid-state stuff I was led to believe had indefinitely-long lives really is as short-lived as vacuum tubes (the laser diodes mentioned above). I may be insane, but I really expect electronic equipment to operate forever. I don't want to buy any that has built-in and inevitable failure. I have a lot of old gear, some older than myself, that still works. I expect this tube gear to wear out from heat and voltage stresses but it hasn't yet. If I buy new stuff, without the tube-caused heat and high-voltage stress, I expect it to last longer than I will! I realize that consumer products have built-in planned obsolescence. I'm not talking about small appliances, which I expect to die and be replaced. I'm talking about multi-hundred-dollar equipment. Am I totally unjustified in expecting such things to be designed to continue to work indefinitely without maintenance, except for mechanical stuff like motors, belts, pots, etc? (I would expect to maintain anything mechanical -- purely electronic gear is different.) Am I alone in this concern? Regards, Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
zben@umd5.UUCP (06/09/85)
In article <11251@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: >I have been hearing and reading disturbing things about electronic >components simply "wearing out" from use, ... >I may be insane, but I really expect electronic equipment to operate >forever. ... >Am I alone in this concern? >Will Martin >USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA Don't forget that data saved in FAMOS (Floating Avalanche Metal Oxide Semi) memories like 2732, 2764, etc is only guaranteed for a mean of 100 years! I guess I'm thinking of early-sales versions of computer-controlled gear that were shipped with EPROM instead of real ROM. For example, the first person in our group who got an H19 got two 2716s, the next got two 2316s (same pinout hard ROM), the next got one 2732, the next got one 2332 etc. -- Ben Cranston ...{seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben zben@umd2.ARPA
michaelk@azure.UUCP (Michael Kersenbrock) (06/12/85)
[] > I have been hearing and reading disturbing things about electronic > components simply "wearing out" from use, or circuit designs which > use batteries for volatile ROMs and which will become useless after > some period of time unless deliberately maintained. The former > example includes a recent net.audio posting about the laser assembly > in a CD player having to be replaced after 5 years or so of use, and the > latter includes the control programming for the ICOM (and other brands) > of shortwave receivers and amateur equipment, wherein an on-board > battery must stay alive to keep a ROM programmed to keep the radio in > operable condition. I own one of those amateur radio devices (actually a Kenwood). After five years or so, when the battery goes dead, I do not intend to pay out several hundred dollars to replace the radio. I plan to pay two dollars and replace the battery. It's just a little lithium cell that keeps the 4-bit CMOS uC alive when the radio is turned off. (Actually it isn't even necessary except that you'd have to reprogram the radio everytime you changed out the ni-cads to another battery pack). Other uses (like terminal baud rate storage, etc) would be similar. It may be a pain to waste several minutes every 5 years to reprogram whatever the battery went out in, but then ... Mike Kersenbrock Tektronix Microcomputer Development Products Aloha, Oregon
moroney@jon.DEC (Mike Moroney) (06/13/85)
I have to agree with you. I will never knowingly buy an electronic device which depends on a battery keeping a RAM alive, especially when ROM's of the same size are cheaper. -Mike
jeff@abnji.UUCP (jeff) (06/14/85)
[Resistance Is Useless!!! (if less than 1 ohm) ]
The concept of electronics lasting forever is in the same
thinking that gives us never-dulling razor blades, 1000mpg, etc.
Reality creeps in everywhere, even in semiconductor devices.
You see, the devices aren't 100% efficient. That's why they generate
heat. If you use a device anywhere near its capacity, it will simply
wear out. A usual tradeoff is speed & efficiency vs power & lifespan.
Underrating components will seem to make them last longer, but
usually will increase the cost immensely (ie a 5W transistor used for
4W won't last as long as a 100W transistor used for 4W, but doesn't
cost as much either. The 100W transistor might be too inefficient
for use in the 4W circuit due to increased losses!). Even
Consumer's Reports show that those 'bulb savers' cause a 100W bulb
to consume 60W of power but give the equivalent of 40W of light
although they last longer. The tradeoff is that your manual labor
to replace the bulb may be worth the inefficiencies.
In computers, speed is of the essence. Many critical components
are used to their maximum performance, such as using TTL
components to their maximum fanout (some EEs even exceed the current
rating with full knowledge that the device will need occasional
replacing but the performance is worth it).
I remember that EPROMS and EEPROMS (aka EAPROMS) have a
finite number of cycles before the layer that is supposed to be
an insulator looses its insulating property. You see, we want
to move electrons through the top layer when programming so it
acts as a poor conductor but all the rest of the time we want an
insulator that won't allow the electrons to wander around. EPROMS
use UV light to scatter the electrons and give them the energy
to penetrate the top layer and fill all the cells. Those UV lights
are rather strong, so the top layer (I forgot the technical term for
that layer)can be rather strong and lasts a long time.
EEPROMS need to be faster to program and react to an electrical signal
to provide erasure/programming. This means a weaker layer and a
lower number of erase cycles (~10,000). This is far from
forever!
Jeff 'definitely an EE for today' Skot
at the unmistakable ATT IS Atrium, Somerset NJ
{ihnp4 | mcnc | cbosgb} abnji ! jeffdca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (06/17/85)
> I have to agree with you. I will never knowingly buy an electronic device -> which depends on a battery keeping a RAM alive, especially when ROM's of the > same size are cheaper. > > -Mike Do WHAT? I don't remember the original posting but I would imagine the RAM is used to store transient information such as station presets and perhaps volume settings. A ROM? be serious, you can have any color you like so long as it's blue, and volume you want so long as it's 5 any station you want if you can get them to move to 101.2 :-) David Albrecht General Electric
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/17/85)
Unfortunately, there really are wear-out mechanisms even in semiconductors. They are less obvious than the ones in tubes, but no less real. Plastic IC packages (used for most ICs in commercial equipment) are not hermetically sealed, and may eventually develop leaks that let air and moisture at the chip; the resulting corrosion kills it. Why do you think the military uses ceramic (truly hermetic) packages almost exclusively? Diffusion does occur even in solids. Various forms of material migration can occur in the presence of electric currents. These things are significant concerns to semiconductor manufacturers. Remember that commercial ICs are optimized for low cost rather than ultimate maximum lifetime. Power spikes, static, and similar forms of overstressing may possibly account for a significant fraction of semiconductor failures in the field. It is very difficult to shield completely against such things, although "99%" protection is much easier and increasingly common. Note that power behavior during powerup and powerdown is rather ill-specified and hard to control completely. EPROMs and EEPROMs inherently have limited lifetimes if they are being reprogrammed regularly, because the erase/program techniques involve pushing electrons through materials that are normally insulators. The technique used to do this is basically brute force. This unavoidably involves some degradation of the insulator. Do it too many times, and it won't insulate any more. EPROMs and EEPROMs will *eventually* lose their contents anyway, because they rely on holding charge on very-well-insulated electrodes. Although the insulation around those electrodes is of truly superb quality, it's not perfect, and the charge will leak off eventually. In the absence of unusual stress, this takes a very long time. Nobody is quite sure how long, because we haven't had the devices that long! Extrapolations from stress tests may not be 100% valid, although they do give hints. Circuit designs which use batteries for volatile memories simply need their batteries replaced occasionally. They don't "become useless" any more than a flashlight becomes useless, although in some cases the battery replacement may be a lot of hassle. (When expected battery lifetime exceeds expected equipment lifetime, it's tempting to just solder the battery in.) Things like semiconductor lasers in CD players are being operated "hard and hot"; this aggravates failure mechanisms like material migration and solid diffusion. Often there is a deliberate tradeoff between power output and lifetime, as with incandescent bulbs. For example, stadium lighting is often run at higher-than-normal voltages; the bulbs burn out quickly but yield a lot more light meanwhile, and this is a reasonable tradeoff in that application. Similarly, commercial semiconductor lasers have very limited power outputs because of difficult technical problems. Getting the necessary power with available components may *require* some deliberate loss of lifetime. Even when higher-power components really are available, it may be a good deal cheaper to opt for shorter life. (Just how much extra are most consumers willing to pay for long-life components? Regular incandescent bulbs heavily outsell long-life bulbs, remember.) > This troubles me. I had thought that we had a reasonable progression of > development of electronics during these days of solid-state gear > replacing tube equipment that meant longer life for any device. ... Longer, yes. But not infinite. Not even the phone company's highly conservative, heavily over-engineered equipment is expected to last more than 40-50 years (and this is *not* a zero-maintenance lifetime, either). > But now I see that designers either deliberately build in inevitable > failures (the use of volatile ROMs and batteries instead of PROMs or > other permanent devices) or the solid-state stuff I was led to believe > had indefinitely-long lives really is as short-lived as vacuum tubes > (the laser diodes mentioned above). You pays your money and you takes your choice. If you are willing to pay double or triple current prices, you could probably get some very long-lived equipment. (The high cost of military electronics is not *all* corruption and overcharging.) (95%, maybe.) > I may be insane, but I really expect electronic equipment to operate > forever. I don't want to buy any that has built-in and inevitable > failure. ... > I realize that consumer products have built-in planned obsolescence. > I'm not talking about small appliances, which I expect to die and be > replaced. I'm talking about multi-hundred-dollar equipment. Am I > totally unjustified in expecting such things to be designed to > continue to work indefinitely without maintenance, except for > mechanical stuff like motors, belts, pots, etc? Basically, yes. There ain't no way to make it work indefinitely. And making it work "a long time" is quite expensive. Semiconductors have made it relatively easy to build gear with far longer lifetimes than tube equipment, but this is a (large) quantitative improvement rather than a fundamental repeal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
hoffman@pitt.UUCP (Bob Hoffman) (06/19/85)
Judging from the direction this discussion has been taking, I think
the point of the original note was lost. I don't think any of us
object to batteries being used in radios and the like to store
transient information. What's being objected to here is the use
of a battery-powered CMOS RAM _i_n_ _p_l_a_c_e_ _o_f a ROM for storing
the "permanent" part of the controller's memory.
In particular, Icom markets a series of radios with this sort of device.
The IC-R71A receiver, the IC-751 HF transceiver, the IC-271 144 MHz
transceiver, and the IC-471 440 MHz transceiver all use a
microprocessor based controller. Each radio, of course, has different
operating parameters, such as frequency range, modes, etc. Therefore,
the operating system must be different for each microprocessor. Now,
rather than using a ROM to store the operating system, they chose to
use a CMOS RAM backed up by a lithium battery.
If the battery should become disconnected, or if it should go dead
(claimed life: 6-7 years), the RAM loses its contents, and the radio
becomes completely useless. Unlike older receivers that used a
tuning capacitor to adjust the local oscillator frequency, it is now
done digitally with a voltage-controlled-oscillator and a digital
counter in a feedback loop. Without the microprocessor running, the
digital counter no longer works and the radio ceases to function.
Completely. As one person mentioned earlier, it becomes a ~$700
doorstop. The only repair is to send the radio (maybe just the RAM
module, I'm not sure) back to Icom to have the battery replaced and
the RAM reloaded.
What will happen when Icom decides to discontinue support for this line
of radios? I tend to keep my radios a long time. I dread the thought
of being helpless to prevent these units from failing.
If I were more adventurous, I would build a circuit to dump the contents
of the RAM into my computer and save the result on disk. Then, I could
either reprogram the RAM myself, or burn some ROMs to replace the whole
module.
What could have been Icom's motivation for doing this? Are they really
out to screw the public by making the radios obsolete before their time?
Could it be cheaper to manufacture this RAM module than a similar ROM?
Do I sound bitter? You bet. I own an R71A and a 271H and I think they're
excellent radios. Really first class. Except for their built-in
obsolescense. I had planned on getting a 471 next year, but am now
reconsidering.
Tnx for reading & 73,
--
Bob Hoffman, N3CVL {allegra, bellcore, cadre, idis, psuvax1}!pitt!hoffman
Pitt Computer Science hoffman%pitt@csnet-relaycontrol@almsa-1 (William Martin) (06/19/85)
In article <508@edison.UUCP> dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes: > >Do WHAT? I don't remember the original posting but I would imagine the >RAM is used to store transient information such as station presets and >perhaps volume settings. > >David Albrecht Unfortunately, this is not the case in the example being cited (Icom R-71A shortwave receiver). The battery keeps a circuit (I really don't know what flavor of device it is) alive, and without the battery that circuit's contents are wiped out. This contains the basic operating system and control info of the radio -- what frequency range it covers, what parameters it can set, everything the microprocessor needs to know to interface with the radio circuits. When that memory goes, the entire radio dies, and must be returned (at least that part of it) for factory reprogramming. This makes it cheaper to make -- instead of burning a permanent memory chip differently for the Australian version (does not tune below 2 MHz) or the German version (does not tune above 26.1 MHz) or the US version (tunes from 100 kHz to 29.999 MHz), you can program them "softly" to be what you want. The cost is transferred down the line to the customer, who must then pay vast amounts more for service 5 or 7 years later than he would have paid in the incremental cost of having a permanently-coded memory circuit built in the radio from the beginning! Disgusting!!!!! Will
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (06/21/85)
'
Just out of curiosity, why on God's green earth would it be required
to make three models of a general coverage receiver in the first place?
Wouldn't it be cheaper even still to have just one mask set for one lousy
CPU, to go from 100 kc/s to 29.999 mc/s, avoiding the service/reprogramming
issue entirely?
Then again, mabye the Australians are on to something.. sure isn't much
below 2.000 mHz here, either (at least down to 540 kc) -:)
David Anthony
Chief Development Engineer
DataSpan, Inc.
.parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (06/22/85)
> In article <508@edison.UUCP> dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes: > > > >Do WHAT? I don't remember the original posting but I would imagine the > >RAM is used to store transient information such as station presets and > >perhaps volume settings. > > > >David Albrecht Here is most of my original article, which was posted some time ago to net.ham-radio: LOSS OF ICOM BACKUP BATTERY FORCES REPROGRAMMING OF RAM A friend from Wheaton (MD) asked me to post this war- ning: If you own an ICOM R71, 751, 271, or 471, don't disconnect the lithium battery on the memory board! All these models use a common $17 memory plug-in board which contains 2 IC's (one a Japanese 2114 RAM) and a lithium battery. This fellow wanted to experiment with the memory cir- cuit, so he disconnected the battery in order to install a socket for the RAM. His radio didn't work when he reconnected everything, and a call to ICOM confirmed that the RAM contains the microcode which gives each model radio its own per- sonality. His board is on its way back to ICOM for reprogramming, which can't be done at the dealer's. For ICOM owners, this means that when the lithium bat- tery runs down (7 year life), the memory board must be sent in for reprogramming. ... This fellow is contemplating using his home computer, which uses 2114s to determine the contents of the ICOM RAM, and is looking for other suggestions. It would be useful to modify the contents of the RAM to permit out of band reception. -- =============================================================================== Bob Parnass, Bell Telephone Laboratories - ihnp4!ihu1h!parnass - (312)979-5414
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (06/22/85)
In article <1005@pitt.UUCP> hoffman@pitt.UUCP (Bob Hoffman) writes: > What's being objected to here is the use >of a battery-powered CMOS RAM _i_n_ _p_l_a_c_e_ _o_f a ROM for storing >the "permanent" part of the controller's memory. This sounds very strange to me. Even if you are afraid of making a mistake and want to avoid using ROMs, EPROMs are dirt cheap ($2). The battery and CMOS RAM are probably more than this. So what reason could there be for using RAM? By the way, please don't be so clever with your ^H_s. -- Offensive pickup line follows: "Hi there, want to be my boy toy?" Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
manatt@lll-crg.ARPA (Doug Manatt) (06/24/85)
{}
What about replacing the 7 year lithium battery after 4 years by
connecting a new battery in parallel and then removing the other. This would
avoid the postage costs and the down time.
Doug Manattron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (06/24/85)
>This sounds very strange to me. Even if you are afraid of making a mistake >and want to avoid using ROMs, EPROMs are dirt cheap ($2). The battery and >CMOS RAM are probably more than this. So what reason could there be for >using RAM? > > Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 *** The only possible reason I can think of is, since the microprocessor probably needs RAM for scratch pad and storing of transient parameters, it may be cheaper to include one RAM for BOTH this and the microprocessor program. I can imagine some 'clever' engineer realizing he could eliminate one whole component and a bit of board space if he combines the RAM and ROM functions into a single IC. Plus, he suddenly has the built-in feature of nonvolitile user-settable parameters, since he has to battery back-up the ram anyway. 'Nifty!' he says to himself. This kind of engineer should be drowned at birth. BTW, I bet if you're very careful, you could replace the battery yourself without killing the ram. I for one wouldn't want to try it. Then again, I probably would not buy such a product in the first place. -- __ Ron Christian (Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif.) {pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix,vecpyr,certes,isi}!wjvax!ron
don@umd5.UUCP (06/26/85)
> What about replacing the 7 year lithium battery after 4 years by > connecting a new battery in parallel and then removing the other. > > Doug Manatt *** REPLACE THIS battery WITH a new one *** Doug, I don't think that would be too good an idea as lithium batteries don't take kindly to being current sinks. One, the battery could explode; two, the battery's life can be shortened considerably. The batteries we (APCOM, Inc.) use even have warnings about too much heat just from the soldering operation to install them on a PC board. The fresh battery would attempt to charge the weak battery while they are connected in parallel. On the other hand, if there is a diode in series with the battery (what we do -- battery back-up), you could possibly do something like you suggested, but one would first need TWO batteries. On battery one, connect a diode in series, and connect the cathode end of the diode to the cathode end of the existing diode on the PC board. Next disconnect the old battery. Now install a new battery in place of the old one. Lastly, disconnect battery one and its diode. Voila !! -- --==---==---==-- ___________ _____ ---- _____ \ //---- IDIC ----- _\______//_ ---- ---------- ARPA: don@umd5.ARPA BITNET: don%umd5@umd2 SPOKEN: Chris Sylvain UUCP: {seismo, rlgvax, allegra, brl-bmd, nrl-css}!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don
john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (06/27/85)
<<<<< I suspect that some of the problems with a radio "forgetting" what it is when the battery dies may be due to legal complications from selling the same radio in different countries. For example if Germany does not allow your receivers to operate above 26.1 Mhz then they may take dim view of a receiver that can be modified to cover that range by pulling out the battery and resetting the computer. John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
wmb@sun.uucp (Mitch Bradley) (06/28/85)
Instead of putting a new battery in parallel with the old one, then removing the old one, you could first connect a capacitor across the RAM, disconnect the old battery, then connect the new battery. That ought to prevent any danger of the new battery charging the old one. You could just leave the capacitor connected if you wanted to. If you are reasonably quick, 10 microfarads ought to be enough, assuming that the RAM is really low power (it probably is if the battery lasts 7 years).
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/28/85)
> Just out of curiosity, why on God's green earth would it be required > to make three models of a general coverage receiver in the first place? > Wouldn't it be cheaper even still to have just one mask set for one lousy > CPU, to go from 100 kc/s to 29.999 mc/s, avoiding the service/reprogramming > issue entirely? > > David Anthony I certainly agree that having just one model would be better, and I wish that were possible for Icom (and every other manufacturer). If all the rest of the world were like the US, it would be. However, the two variants I mentioned originally (German and Australian) are different because of these reasons: The Deutsche Bundespost has some asinine and offensive restrictions on receivers, nominally meant to keep public-service & police, etc. transmissions private, and justified on the grounds of anti-terrorism (ignoring the obvious fact that terrorists that can get illegal guns and explosives can certainly get any electronics they want!). This means that "E-suffix" models ("E" for "European") of shortwave receivers have to cut off their coverage at 26.1 MHz (or so) at the top end, for German sales. (We had a net.ham-radio discussion about this a few months ago, by the way.) The Australian customs regulations charge a much higher duty on receivers that tune below 2 MHz, probably to impose taxes on consumer radios that cover the AM Broadcast Band. Cutting the coverage off at 2 MHz on those saves the Australian customer quite a bit, and probably means that Icom can sell a lot more radios in Australia than they otherwise would at the higher price (which would just be income to Customs, not to Icom anyway). These sorts of restrictions *should* be implemented with internal jumpers that the consumer could cut to restore full coverage operation, not by differently-programmed circuits or the like that are difficult for the non-technical to overcome. That way the offensive government-imposed restrictions can be bypassed, but the end-user does not have to suffer their effects. Regards, Will Martin ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA UUCP/Usenet: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin