sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

etpm@whidbey.com: Nov 30 09:33AM -0800 I have several EPROMs from the 1980s that I would like to copy so that I will have backups. I see all sorts of readers/programmers online and on eBay but I don't know what to avoid or buy. I have EPROMs that I can practice with. They are good as far as I know but the info in them is for a different machine. So I was thinking I could copy one, then program a new one with the copied data, and then compare the two to make sure all the data was copied correctly. I am assuming that the software I use to copy and write will also have the ability to compare the two devices. I may be wrong. In about a month the machine I am most worried about will be free for long enough for me to do the copying process. I do know how to handle the boards properly to avoid static and other damage and I do have a nice tool made for removing and inserting the devices. Any advice or suggestions? Thanks, Eric

John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Nov 30 11:56AM -0800 > and inserting the devices. Any advice or suggestions? > Thanks, > Eric   Hi Eric,   It all depends on the chip. For example - 2716s - most Eprom programmers can still read those, however if you have 2532s that is harder to find a reader for. 2732s, 2764s, and later almost any inexpensive device (Wilem for example) will read those.   If you have 2708s then you will have to buy a legacy Eprom programmer to read those unless you are adept at making interface modules - you have to provide +12 and -5 for 2708s. Earlier still devices, and PROMs again need more specialized reader/programmers.   Most of the 70s games are archived and not too hard to find via MAME. Which games are you trying to back up?   Or you can talk to someone like my shop where we can read and program devices right back to 1702As so we could read your chips and give you a copy of the archive. Not free I'm afraid! Cost depends on the device read.   John :-#)#   -- (Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup) John's Jukes Ltd. MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3 (604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) www.flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

Dimitrij Klingbeil <nospam@no-address.com>: Nov 30 10:21PM +0100 > boards properly to avoid static and other damage and I do have a nice > tool made for removing and inserting the devices. Any advice or > suggestions? Thanks, Eric   As John said already, the most important part is the device support. Manufacturers of various EPROM programmers will typically publish long lists of devices that their programmer is designed to support. First make sure that the devices (EPROMs) you need to read are supported by the programmer you intend to buy. Often commonly available "popular" devices were made by multiple manufacturers and were known by various similar names, so when looking up device types in a list, it may make sense to look up the other known compatible type names too. However beware that there are some devices by certain manufacturers that are known to be "quirky" and that some theoretically "compatible" devices need not always be fully compatible. In the most cases a "compatible" device will at least be compatible enough to read identically, but when it comes to programming them, beware - there be dragons in the details.   As for any particular programmer, I can't really recommend much due to the lack of experience. I've used a MiniPro TL866A in the recent past and found it to be built and working reasonably well. However, I only had recently made serial EEPROMs and Flash-PROMs to program, nothing from before the 2000s, let alone 1980s, so no experience with them. Anyway, here is the device support list of the MiniPro TL866A:   http://www.autoelectric.cn/minipro/MiniProSupportList.txt   Note that some of these devices are micro controllers (AVR, PIC) with serial interfaces, for these the TL866A (but not the similar TL866CS) has an in-circuit serial programming interface available via a second port. Apart for it (the ICSP) these 2 programmers operate identically.   Dimitrij

mike <ham789@netzero.net>: Nov 30 01:26PM -0800 > and inserting the devices. Any advice or suggestions? > Thanks, > Eric   Rule number one...if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Yeah, right...   It's critically dependent on the EXACT devices you're trying to program.   If you can read the prom, you can save the data without burning a new one.   But, it's always good to fully test the process so you will know it works when you need it.   A prom that verifies in the programmer may not work in the target system at speed.   Compaq made a laptop in the 90's that had a flash bios. It would randomly quit booting. If you read the eprom slowly in the programmer and reprogrammed the same eprom with the same data you'd just read from it it would work again...until the next time it broke. Using a new eprom didn't help. They had left the program enable line floating when not in use and it would slowly degrade the bits. The lesson here is that a prom that verifies in the programmer does not guarantee a working system.   I'm a big fan of rule number one.

etpm@whidbey.com: Nov 30 03:09PM -0800 On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:56:10 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote:   >devices right back to 1702As so we could read your chips and give you a >copy of the archive. Not free I'm afraid! Cost depends on the device read.   >John :-#)# The machine in question is a CNC lathe with a Fanuc control. Neither Fanuc or Miyano, the lathe manufacturer, have any more EPROMs. Eric

etpm@whidbey.com: Nov 30 03:10PM -0800 >The lesson here is that a prom that verifies in the programmer does >not guarantee a working system.   >I'm a big fan of rule number one. The problem is that if it does break it will be hard to find replacements. I wanna be pro-active and have spares. Eric

John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Nov 30 03:12PM -0800 > The machine in question is a CNC lathe with a Fanuc control. Neither > Fanuc or Miyano, the lathe manufacturer, have any more EPROMs. > Eric   So, what are the part numbers of the EPROMs? Chances are it is fairly modern, and indeed you want to archive those!   I'd archive them for you if you want to make me a small injection mold or two (ducking).   John :-#)#   -- (Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup) John's Jukes Ltd. MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3 (604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) www.flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Nov 30 04:03PM -0800 On 2017/11/30 3:12 PM, John Robertson wrote:   > I'd archive them for you if you want to make me a small injection mold > or two (ducking).   > John :-#)#   Charge retention was estimated to be over 50 years back in the early 80s (see link article), but you are well over halfway through that period and it certainly is a good idea to archive them!   http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel6/8298/25930/01156517.pdf   John :-#)#   -- (Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup) John's Jukes Ltd. MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3 (604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) www.flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

etpm@whidbey.com: Nov 30 06:29PM -0800 On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:12:01 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote:     >I'd archive them for you if you want to make me a small injection mold >or two (ducking).   >John :-#)# Greetings John, I'll get part numbers tomorrow and post them. All the EPROMs in my Fanuc controls are, I think, the same part. After I read the EPROMs I would also like to look at what is written in them. In particular some of them have ladders. I spoke with Miyano, who wrote the ladders for the lathe, and they don't have any records of what was written. But I'm not sure if I am going to need special software to make sense of what was written. I want to do this because the Miyano lathe didn't come with a rapid override switch or a spindle override switch. Or even a spindle stop switch that works when the lathe is running a program. These features are all options for the control and the machine tool maker decides which ones to use. The machine moves very fast in rapid, has a 15 hp spindle, and crashes are nerve wracking. This machine is the only CNC machine I have seen that does not have a rapid override. Setups with a new program always make me nervous. Thanks, Eric

John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Dec 01 12:33AM -0800 > program always make me nervous.   > Thanks, > Eric   So, the EPROMs hold lookup tables, that are like the old automated looms shown a long time ago on the Connections (BBC) series?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itd-4lMoXgI   Some of the EPROMs will be operating code, others may be your ladders. Would need to know the CPU these run under - probably 8-bit like 6502 or Z80 if early 80s.   Sounds a bit fun.   A couple of fellows I knew back in the 80s and 90s had some rather large CNC lathes, and mill machines that ran on paper tape. I tried to help them keep them running but in the end I just didn't know enough (and this was prior to 1995 - the internet could have saved them) to keep them going and they shut the shop down as they could not afford newer equipment. Always felt sad about that. However Honeywell offered zero support (other than schematics) and they could not find anyone else remotely interested in trying to help. Nice guys too.   Things were different pre-1995!   John :-#(#

mike <ham789@netzero.net>: Dec 01 08:13AM -0800 > The problem is that if it does break it will be hard to find > replacements. I wanna be pro-active and have spares. > Eric   I understand the desire. I can't count the number of times I started with one good gizmo and one bad gizmo and ended up with two bad gizmos. Was not the desired result. Good luck.

Look165 <look165@numericable.fr>: Dec 01 05:34PM +0100 Some companies make copies from a samplefor some "cents".

mroberds@att.net: Dec 01 04:31AM > I own an old Tektronix 4107 serial terminal, not really useful, but I > like having working pieces of history.   https://invisible-mirror.net/archives/shuford/terminal/tektronix_news.txt says some Tek part numbers for the manuals are:   4107/4109 Programmmers Reference Manual 070-4893-00 4107/4109 Reference Guide 070-4892-00 4107 Service Manual 070-4889-00   The programmer's reference is available here https://www.vt100.net/manx/details/5,5482 but unfortunately not the service manual.   You might ask over in comp.terminals , too.   Matt Roberds

mroberds@att.net: Dec 01 04:18AM > Amazon sells a cheap one as Apevia ATX-VS450W Venus 450W ATX   A machine that old probably won't use an ATX supply; it will use an AT supply. The main difference is in the connector(s) to the motherboard - an AT supply has two or three 6-pin connectors (1 row x 6 pins), while an ATX supply has one 20 or 24-pin connector (2 rows x 10 or 12 pins). (And no, you can't cut up an ATX connector to make it fit on a motherboard that expect an AT connector.)   Pretty much all AT supplies have two of those 6-pin connectors to deliver +5, -5, +12, -12, and ground. Later AT supplies, approximately once 3.3 V PCI happened, had a third 6-pin connector to deliver +3.3 and ground. I have a Gateway P5-100 of that same era that had the motherboard connector for +3.3 V, but no corresponding plug on the power supply; if you aren't running any PCI cards that need +3.3 V, you don't *need* the +3.3 V connection. If you see an empty 6-pin connector on the motherboard, that looks like the two connectors that do have plugs from the power supply, then you don't need the +3.3 V. (IIRC the +3.3 V connector is near the PCI slots, away from the other two.)   The ATX supply will also have some other connectors that an AT supply won't have, like +12 V for fancy video cards and +12/+5/+3.3 V for SATA hard drives, but the motherboard connector is the main difference.   Newegg still sells a couple of AT supplies, one for $37 shipped https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817707002 and one for $60 shipped https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817103051 . The $37 one is rated 230 W, so it should replace your 145 W power supply easily. It doesn't have the +3.3 V connector, though. The +3.3 V status of the $60 one is unclear, but it's safest to assume that it doesn't have it.   I looked at Micro Center, but they don't seem to stock AT power supplies anymore. There probably is a store in NYC where you could buy one if you want to have it today, but I don't know where that store is.   I don't get money or other consideration from any companies mentioned.   Matt Roberds

bud-- <null@void.com>: Nov 30 11:03AM -0600 >> In the UK they are commonly known as Choc Block connectors.   >> http://cpc.farnell.com/hellermanntyton/cs15nt/terminal-block-polyethylene-16a/dp/CB15474?CMP=KNC-GUK-CPC-GEN-SHOPPING-HELLERMANNTYTON-CB15474&gross_price=true&mckv=swQRURloc_dc|pcrid|72935675177|kword||match||plid||pid|CB15474|&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIg5WglMbk1wIVzLztCh05NQvYEAQYASABEgLGEfD_BwE   > They emphatically *DO NOT* meet the US NEC code for branch-wiring - and would be quite dangerous in such an application.   I have no idea what that is based on (other than they aren't listed by UL/equivalent).   Compare to http://www.kinginnovation.com/products/20/3-port-alumiconn I believe these are the US equivalent of choc block. They are UL listed. They are, as far as I know, the safest readily available splice method for #12 and #10 (15 and 20 amp) aluminum wire or aluminum to copper. (Also copper to copper.)   ------------------------------- Twisting wire with wire nuts - sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I am careful putting wirenuts on and if I don't twist them I still don't have problems. Twisting is not required by manufacturers, UL, or the NEC. Your option.   ----------------------------- Most wirenuts have a metal spring that bites into the wires. In some ('live-spring') the spring can expand over the wires. Others it is fixed size in a hard plastic shell. I think the live spring ones are much more reliable and are the only ones I use. (Except not available for signal wires.) Wirenuts have readily available specs for how many wires they are made for, and those specs should be followed religiously.   -------------------------------------- I am real leery about using "push-in' connectors. That comes from "back-stab" switches and receptacles, which are not reliable. (The ones available now only work with #14 wire - #12 was eliminated.)   --------------------------------------------- I find my (whatever) is better than your (whatever) arguments to be boring. And if you look at the details, may be not true.   > Without seeing the actual situation in front of my eyes, I would not dare to opine on a solution. But, if it were my house, and I could not splice safely in the wall-box, I would bite the bullet and go back to the nearest box or back to the panel.   That can be quite time consuming and expensive. The question of course is whether you can splice safely. If the insulation is not damaged I usually can.   bud-- (licensed electrician)     --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"Ron D." <ron.dozier@gmail.com>: Nov 30 05:07PM -0800 Ideal got rid of these Term-a-nuts that I really loved. With mot new work being in plastic boxes, there probably isn't the demand anymore.   The ones with the wire ends work nicely with ceiling fixtures, giving you three easy flexible drop wires.   The ones with the spade lugs help with outlets and it gets rid of the outlet making the daisy chain connections at least for N and ground. It was plain ole easy.   Upgrades were done in the house for polarized two prong with a grounded box to polarized 3 prong, but there are no threaded ground holes on the metal boxes of the 1960's. So, with the necessity to ground both the box and the outlet, it's a messy connection. You could use the term a nut and put the two grounds together from the daisy chain (Stranded #12) which terminates with a fork terminal which goes to the outlet. A sold pigtail with a ground clip makes a 3-wire ground connection with the other end under the ground clip.   The builders basically twisted the Romex grounds from two pieces of Romex (non plastic insulated) and placed then under a screw that moved the Romex strain relief plate.   That connection may not be gas tight (no wirenut), so you can loose that ground. It's not nice to loose grounds.   So, that's happened. Another thing that recently happened is I replaced an duplex outlet with a high quality tamper-proof one (electrical supply store) and the box was a mm too small and the wires touched the side of the box 2 years later. It was really stupid the way the outlet was designed. The mfr said, it has to allow a #12 under the screw and not touch the sides. But a mm short was too short. The duplex outlet could move from side to side and touch the screws. The Term-a-nut reduces that distance too.   I mounted a small string level on an go/no-go outlet tester (The neon wired correctly kind) and that very easily allows me to set the duplex receptacles level.   Ther term-a-nuts make it easy to remove the outlets before painting too. The wires are easier to stuff in the box.   Now, the NEC requires neutrals in every box. So, you need neutrals in the boxes that contain switches.

Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>: Nov 30 04:12PM -0600 John-Del wrote:     >> Jon   > I would have thought they'd be using a nearly infinite mass flywheel to > stave off power pulses. The alternator, itself, was a big flywheel. But, with a several hundred HP steam engine with just one cylinder per pressure stage, the power pulses would be pretty strong. They did often put an additional flywheel in the system, but they were NOT infinite.   Jon

Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>: Nov 30 04:24PM -0600 > relatively simple instruments. And by how much was discovered and > figured out when many measurements took so long and then doing the > math that also took so long. No, and I'm wondering if even oscillographs were available back in the 1890's. But, I can easily imagine some improvised methods, like mounting a small motor on Prony brake-like structure. The motor's stator is mounted on bearings, and allowed to swivel around the shaft. An arm rests on a scale to measure motor torque. You could replace the scale with a spring and watch the arm wiggle.   Anyway, the guys who were DEEP into the physics of this stuff, like Steinmetz and Tesla, could analyze the magnetic fields and the shapes of the machine's poles and figure out what the harmonics would be. So, they didn't do it ad-hoc, they analyzed what they needed to do to get harmonics (waveform distortion) to manageable levels, and built the machines that way, I do have some electrical engineering texts from 1910 or so that descibe how this was done.   Another thing that was well-understood way back then was power factor. It was typical to have one real big machine in a plant that had a wound-rotor synchronous motor driving it. By adjusting the rotor field, you cound turn it into a source of leading power factor, correcting the power factor of the whole plant. These were called synchronous condensers, ie. a rotary replacement for capacitor banks. I actually found a pair of these in a 1950's vintage facory built for the Korean war. They had a pair of HUUUUUGE Ingersoll-Rand air compressors of 50 - 100 Hp each. They had salient-pole synchronous motors that were about 8 feet diameter and one foot length. The piston was a foot in diameter and had a stroke of several feet, horizontally. On the wall, there were power factor meters that adjusted the rotor field strength to keep the plant power factor near 1.0   Jon

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.