On 2015-12-25 22:29, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 12/25/2015 01:10 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
OK, I misunderstood you. No, I have never seen one of those that was
not a turned pin type.
TI also sold some wire-wrap sockets (gold-plated to their credit) with
"forked" type contacts which were welded(
On 12/25/2015 01:10 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
OK, I misunderstood you. No, I have never seen one of those that was
not a turned pin type.
TI also sold some wire-wrap sockets (gold-plated to their credit) with
"forked" type contacts which were welded(?) to the wrap posts. They had
the anno
> No, I was referring to the wirewrap *boards* with individual press-fit
> socket pins, usually on very thick FR4 stock. You know--*real* industrial
> wire-wrap, not the cheap hobbyist stuff.
OK, I misunderstood you. No, I have never seen one of those that was
not a turned pin type.
--
Will
On 12/25/2015 12:25 PM, tony duell wrote:
These aren't individual pins, but complete DIL sockets. An example is
shown in this E-bay listing :
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/20-pieces-New-16-Pin-Cambion-Wire-Wrap-DIP-Sockets-Gold-Pins-/262081127835
Oh, I know that the individual sockets didn't. He
I likely do. If I find one, do you need it? I do not do wire wrap.
They were not all that bad when they came out, but time has not been
kind to them - almost all have corrosion issues, sort of like Nuvistor
sockets. I have a memory of seeing a gold plated version, but I might
be making that up.
-
> >> Aren't in fact, all wirewrap (board+pin) board sockets machine-pin?
> >> I don't recall seeing one that wasn't. Given the great track
> >> record of wire-wrapped designs that says something, surely.
> >
> > No, some were not machined.
>
> Got any examples? I've never seen a press-fit wire-w
On 12/25/2015 11:41 AM, William Donzelli wrote:
Aren't in fact, all wirewrap (board+pin) board sockets machine-pin?
I don't recall seeing one that wasn't. Given the great track
record of wire-wrapped designs that says something, surely.
No, some were not machined.
Got any examples? I've nev
At 12:06 PM 12/25/2015, Jonas Otter wrote:
>I would use a turned pin type socket instead, e g an Augat socket.
For decades I have used Augat sockets for mission-critical applications. I have
never had a contact failure where they are used.
Dale H. Cook, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
Osborne 1 / Kaypro
>
> One recalls those execrable low-profile cheap sockets from TI in the
> early 70s. Horrible stuff.
Those were about the worst!
> Aren't in fact, all wirewrap (board+pin) board sockets machine-pin? I
> don't recall seeing one that wasn't. Given the great track record of
> wire-wrapped desig
> Aren't in fact, all wirewrap (board+pin) board sockets machine-pin? I don't
> recall seeing one that wasn't. Given the great track record of wire-wrapped
> designs that says something, surely.
No, some were not machined.
--
Will
On 12/25/2015 09:32 AM, tony duell wrote:
My feeling is that for the sort of things most of us do here, a
turned pin socket is the most reliable of all. Yes, soldering the IC
directly may have a (slightly) lower risk of bad connections, but
given that we do (or at least I do) component level rep
raightened pins.
Dwight
From: cctalk on behalf of tony duell
Sent: Friday, December 25, 2015 9:32 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: Piggybacking 74LS logic chips to confirm a suspected fault
> In my experience, the
> In my experience, the type of socket you used is quite unreliable and
> will tend to develop bad contacts. There is a reason they are cheap... I
> would use a turned pin type socket instead, e g an Augat socket. They
> will not let you down. More expensive, but considering the work involved
> in
>> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
>> Van: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens Terry
Stewart
>> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 december 2015 21:50
>> Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>> Onderwerp: Piggybacking 74LS logic chips to confirm a suspected fault
>>
>>
On 22/12/2015 20:50, "Terry Stewart" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've written up my recent third Apple II repair, this time an Apple IIe.
> http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2015-12-22-appleiIIe-no-video.htm
>
> One interesting aspect of this repair is that piggy-backing a logic chip
> helped co
Or it is a mechanical fault due to a package/die bond wire becoming an open
circuit.
This could happen to where the wire joins to either the package or the die pad,
or
a wire that was fused due to excess current. Hard to tell unless you decap the
package.
On 12/22/2015 1:32 PM, Alexandre Souz
Becaise they have diodes to gnd/vcc. And the common failure of a diode is a
rupture of the barrier and so, it gets shorted. So the gate is shorted to
ground or vcc
Enviado do meu Tele-Movel
Em 22/12/2015 19:29, "Chuck Guzis" escreveu:
> On 12/22/2015 01:10 PM, Alexandre Souza wrote:
>
>> It work
On 12/22/2015 01:10 PM, Alexandre Souza wrote:
It works if the gate is open. But if it is shorted to gnd/vcc, you're
in trouble :)
In my experience, this is the case with a lot of 4000-series CMOS.
Don't exactly understand why.
--Chuck
>It works if the gate is open. But if it is shorted to gnd/vcc, you're in
>trouble :)
Yea. In my case the chip was quite cool, so I figured it wasn't shorted
and took the risk. On reflection checking vcc/gnd with a multimeter would
be a more definitive way of checking for a short of that nature.
It works if the gate is open. But if it is shorted to gnd/vcc, you're in
trouble :)
Enviado do meu Tele-Movel
Em 22/12/2015 19:09, "Rik Bos" escreveu:
>
>
> > -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> > Van: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Namens Terry Stewart
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 de
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Namens Terry Stewart
> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 december 2015 21:50
> Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Onderwerp: Piggybacking 74LS logic chips to confirm a suspected fault
>
> Hi,
>
> I'
21 matches
Mail list logo
