??? 12/18/04 16:42 Read: times |
#83424 - What it is? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Okay,
It wasn't temperature. It wasn't humidity. It wasn't too long a screw in a critical place. Yes, the old board worked when tested. No, the new boards still didn't work. Erik has been right there next to the solution. In fact, he (and a couple other of you) would probably have isolated the problem by now, but I still haven't seen anyone nail it down. No Erik. The old board does NOT work with the new components. But now that you've identified that the new components are the problem, how do you fix it? I still haven't heard anyone articulate the problem with the new components. So how will you fix it? So without further information other than 'it doesn't work' I'll have to make a guess. If there is simply no activity then suspect the oscillator, check the crystal/resonator whatever and associated components. If it runs but crashes/freezes suspect timing so check external memory and also decoupling because if this is insufficient then a new part taking more current may introduce ground bounce etc. Also check any series ferrite beads/resistors fitted for EMC. I have had several cases of improperly marked resistors that were tough to track down so while you are at it check the actual values of all the passive components. Lastly if it works mostly but goes wrong occasionaly I would suspect a mask change. I once worked on an 8051 development where the part was made as part of a so called 'mask exchange' agreement so the parts should have been identical to the Intel originals. It turned out that for one instruction only the new part set a flag differently to the Intel part. Ian |
Topic | Author | Date |
Weekend On-Topic (WOnT) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
microsoft ?? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Cute ;) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Weekend on Topic | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
A very reasonable hypothesis | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
happened here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
The chip changed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What happened? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Also an excellent hypothesis | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
too much | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Nah. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Me too, But | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
systematic debugging | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Pb-free? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Did the temp characteristics change? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
another one from memory | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What it's not. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Solution | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Speed! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Speed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Would get the oscope, first | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Try this | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What it is? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Think volume | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Not a puzzle!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Apologies | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Y2K-and-something | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Y2K + something | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Y2k05 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
The Unix Epoch and the Year 2038 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yet another true story... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
A perfect example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Newer IC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Answer time...? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
another guess | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
language | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Faster does not mean better! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Ok | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Gladly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
To tell the whole truth... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Hidden parameters | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Parasitic parameters | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Chip manufacturer changed? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Faster/slower or "controlled" rise time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Answer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Amazing.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Amazed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Split Planes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
A bit disappointed... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Series resistors and line matching | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Series termination resistors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Series termination | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
SWR | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
simulation to the rescue | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thanks! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
The same moment? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
The same moment! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I'm Back.![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |