|
JP1 Remotes
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jamesgammel Exile Island Resident
Joined: 03 Aug 2003 Posts: 394 Location: Gillette, Wyoming |
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:11 pm Post subject: Good grief, perhaps yet another Mill4. |
|
|
Working with John Head, we've concluded that He does indeed have a previously unknown Mill4, a B02. Since i already know that B04's exist (I have 2), It's very likely that a B03 also exists, and is just now unconfirmed.
That made me re-examine all the ones I have left. Wouldn't you know it, I've discovered yet TWO more variations . One so far is pretty minor, and was a B00 version, which means I'll have to see if the B00 rdf still applies with it.
The biggest and most shocking one concerns the B01's. First off, I have 6 B01's left of the original 7 I got, having sent John one of them. What was most shocking was that THREE had real eeprom chips mounted on the top-side (non-trace), much larger than the surface mount eeproms we're familiar with. The legs go through holes thru the pcb, where they are soldered to the traces on the bottom. The eeprom is labelled: ATMEL 926 24C08 P(maybeF?)C18 B (three lines) They are much larger in all dimensions (Length, width, and thickness)
The B04 used a "real chip" instead of the epeoxy blob, but still had a surface mounted eeprom. This variation of the B01 has an epxy blob MCU, but a "real" chip eeprom.
Has anyone else ever seen a ueic remote with a "real" eeprom chip(non-surface mount type)? BTW, JOHN: The eeprom can easily be seen from the JP-1 hole if you look in the hole toward the bottom of the remote, if I happened to send you one of these as a B01 sample.
Here's the fun part: While the PCB is labelled that it's a B01, elsewhere it's noted "Rev:03". Hmmmmmm, B00 was original version, B01 is Rev:01; John's B02 is "Rev:03" (which still fits), now I find a B01 with "Rev:03" also. Hmmmmmm, So, what happened to "Rev:02"? Looks like I gotta take some more apart . Also looks like I'll have to do more work with rdf's since I now know that *at least* one more needs to be written. This is really complicating the "Identification" part that we got addedto the RDF's and IR. I may end up having to post a synopsis at Yahoo.
Jim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Pierson Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003 Posts: 3017 Location: Connecticut, USA |
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: Good grief, perhaps yet another Mill4. |
|
|
jamesgammel wrote: | Has anyone else ever seen a ueic remote with a "real" eeprom chip(non-surface mount type)? | I haven't seen a DIP EEPROM in any remotes I've worked on, but I do know that the 2103 has provisions for using either a DIP or surface-mount. I think Tommy Tyler is the one who told me this: many times you'll see this on PCB's so that unavailablity of one style chip won't shut down the production line... they simply go with the other style. _________________ Mark |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jamesgammel Exile Island Resident
Joined: 03 Aug 2003 Posts: 394 Location: Gillette, Wyoming |
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mark, thanks for that input, it made me take a closer look. These particular boards (MIll4's) are the only ones I've seen with the DIP style eeprom. The top of the board is indeed labelled "U2 DIP", and a corresponding box outline where this component goes. Fact is, anything that is top mounted is labelled and boxed. On the bottom side, I did find U2_SMD which I interpret as "U2_SurfaceMounteD" So it fits that this particular board was designed for an either or type eeprom. R19 with one style is rotated 90 degrees from if the other style is used. Provisions for connecting R19 is provided both ways, I guess which chip they were going to use had to be decided first so the resistor would be orientated right.
Another thing a little unusual is some lack of uniformity with model designations printed. For example, both are B01's, but the surface mounted chip one is "48000B01" whereas the DIP one is "48XXXB01". The B04 is 4MDXXXB04.
Anyone want to hazard a guess what would happen if I ADDED a surface mounted chip so it had BOTH installed at the same time? Further, what if the SMD one was a 2K, rather than a 1K like the DIP one already there?
Jim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mr_d_p_gumby Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003 Posts: 1370 Location: Newbury Park, CA |
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
jamesgammel wrote: | Anyone want to hazard a guess what would happen if I ADDED a surface mounted chip so it had BOTH installed at the same time? Further, what if the SMD one was a 2K, rather than a 1K like the DIP one already there? | Assuming that they both actually work after you install the new one, it'd be somewhat like two people trying to talk at the same time when the processor tried to read the EEPROM(s). In other words, you'd have to do more that just add the second chip to make it work, and then it'd be no different than just replacing the original one with a larger device. In this case, since the code can't handle a larger device, you would not gain anything. _________________ Mike England |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|