Electronic components aging

Hi Joseph,

On 10/19/2013 5:33 PM, josephkk wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:32:15 +0100, Paul E Bennett

>> I don't know where your utilities are based but I am certain that the ones
>> near me have all upgraded their systems over the years (just to cope with
>> demands).
>
> Here we get into some of the interesting parts.  They do not replace
> working gear without a really good reason.  Particularly if it involves
> major investment in compatible equipment in some way.  Face it, rebuilding
> refineries and such is very expensive.  And generally not done even
> piecemeal.

You replace preemptively when the cost of a *required* replacement
(i.e., after a failure) exceeds the cost of the preemptive maintenance.

They replaced all the gas lines (*to* each residence as well as
the feeds throughout the subdivision) here in the past year or two.
(i.e., "piecemeal").

The time involved was incredible!  A single residence would take
the better part of a day (the crews had to leave the property
looking the same as when they arrived).  So, there would be 6 or 8
crews working the neighborhood at a time.  And, this went on for
months!

When they (later) came through to replace the mains (and upgrade
them in the process), they first "located" all of the buried
services (phone, CATV, electric, water, sewer) in the roadway.
Then, cut "spy holes" through the asphalt and excavated down
to expose each such service, verify its presence and its depth
below grade.

Then, they used a "horizontal drill" to burrow under the street
while working to avoid each of these services whose path the drill
would cross (from the time the service is exposed to the time it
is reburied, it remains *their* liability).  While the drill could
run ~700 ft in a day, all the prep work and followup work made it
more like 50 ft per day, overall -- by the time the spy holes
were all filled in, pipe sleeve shaded, etc.

*Then*, they had to switch all those *new* residential "drops"
over to the new feed and "abandon" the old feeder.

I.e., this was a *huge* investment.  Yet, everything was "working"
at the time it was undertaken.  Obviously, the concern was that
a natural failure after several decades underground could easily
cost them millions of dollars (if a gas leak followed a pipe into
a residence and started a fire/explosion).

The same is true of other utilities.  E.g., the City replaces
water meters continuously (rotating schedule).  Failures can
result in leaks.  *Or*, billing errors (often in the consumer's
favor!).

It's just a case of expected valuation:  is it cheaper to be
proactive or reactive?  Do the math...

On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:33:09 -0700, josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:32:15 +0100, Paul E Bennett
><Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>Any component that relies on the long term stabiliity of chemistry will
>>>>degrade and fail eventually.  Even in the mechanical world metals like
>>>>Iron and Stainless Steel will change over time.
>>>>
>>>>Only in software can you achieve really long lifetimes (if you are careful
>>>>about your design) but then what would you have left to run it on?
>>> 
>>> Try looking at some serious long term infrastructure systems.  There is
>>> plenty of SCADA that has already lasted as much as 60 years or more.  Lots
>>> more in heavy industries (refining, major metal mills, chemical plants,
>>> water treatment, wastewater treatment, etc.,) where replacement costs get
>>> really really big.
>>> 
>>> ?-)
>>
>>I don't suppose that those systems are still running without having had some 
>>maintenance (board swaps, repairs etc). Would you wish to guarantee that any 
>>system you design today will still be operating that far in the future.
>>
>>I don't know where your utilities are based but I am certain that the ones 
>>near me have all upgraded their systems over the years (just to cope with 
>>demands).
>
>Here we get into some of the interesting parts.  They do not replace
>working gear without a really good reason.  Particularly if it involves
>major investment in compatible equipment in some way.  Face it, rebuilding
>refineries and such is very expensive.  And generally not done even
>piecemeal.
>
>?-)

Did you look at the pictures from the Fukushima nuclear power station
control rooms ? The reactors were built in the early 1970's and based
on those pictures, original equipment was still used at least in the
control room.

The operation license was extended by 10 years, just before the
tsunami, so we can just guess, if the original equipment would have
been used to end of that period or replaced just for the 10 year
extension. 

A Canadian nuclear power company just recently tried to hire PDP-11
assembler programmers to keep some auxiliary systems running until
2050.

One reason for using very old systems in heavy industry is the
certification process, which would have to be done for each replaced
system. 

In some cases the requirements have become harder, but some old
systems might be accepted with those historical requirements. Thus the
owner tries to keep the old system running as long as possible with
small incremental replacements but still remaining within the original
requirements and certification.

On 10/20/2013 12:41 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:33:09 -0700, josephkk
> <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> I don't suppose that those systems are still running without having had some
>>> maintenance (board swaps, repairs etc). Would you wish to guarantee that any
>>> system you design today will still be operating that far in the future.
>>>
>>> I don't know where your utilities are based but I am certain that the ones
>>> near me have all upgraded their systems over the years (just to cope with
>>> demands).
>>
>> Here we get into some of the interesting parts.  They do not replace
>> working gear without a really good reason.  Particularly if it involves
>> major investment in compatible equipment in some way.  Face it, rebuilding
>> refineries and such is very expensive.  And generally not done even
>> piecemeal.
>
> Did you look at the pictures from the Fukushima nuclear power station
> control rooms ? The reactors were built in the early 1970's and based
> on those pictures, original equipment was still used at least in the
> control room.
>
> The operation license was extended by 10 years, just before the
> tsunami, so we can just guess, if the original equipment would have
> been used to end of that period or replaced just for the 10 year
> extension.
>
> A Canadian nuclear power company just recently tried to hire PDP-11
> assembler programmers to keep some auxiliary systems running until
> 2050.

US military is interested in 6502 programmers.  8085 is offered in
a rad-hardened version.  etc.  This when folks are walking around
with thousands of times the processing power in their phones!  :-/

Until recently, I kept a 9-track tape operational, here, to support
some legacy products (can you spell "boat anchor"?)

> One reason for using very old systems in heavy industry is the
> certification process, which would have to be done for each replaced
> system.

It's not just certification but, often, the molasses pace that
acquisition processes move in some industries.  E.g., when I
visited the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, they were installing
computers they had ordered 10 *years* earlier!  (Um, doesn't
that make them *inherently* obsolete?  And, these are what is
protecting us from The Russkies??)

> In some cases the requirements have become harder, but some old
> systems might be accepted with those historical requirements. Thus the
> owner tries to keep the old system running as long as possible with
> small incremental replacements but still remaining within the original
> requirements and certification.

Witness the exorbitant prices some folks want for ancient hardware.

One firm I worked at was scurrying to find Apple ]['s in order to
keep producing a product senselessly based on that platform.  I wonder
if the customers paying $30K+ realized the Apple therein was
acquired at a garage sale, etc.  :-(

I worked on a "tester" for *core* memory for a US bomber in the
late 70's.  Core?  WTF??  (actually, there are good reasons to
use core -- size NOT being one of them!)

<frown>

"Don Y" <this@isnotme.com> wrote in message 
news:l402nd$7gu$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> I worked on a "tester" for *core* memory for a US bomber in the
> late 70's.  Core?  WTF??  (actually, there are good reasons to
> use core -- size NOT being one of them!)

I have some JAN microminiature tubes of recent production.  Good reasons, 
yes... just not many! ;-)

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs
Electrical Engineering Consultation
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

> US military is interested in 6502 programmers.  8085 is offered in
> a rad-hardened version.  etc.  This when folks are walking around
> with thousands of times the processing power in their phones!  :-/

They are also used in ASIC, simple cores with low Qs.  4000 for 6502. 6000 for 8085.  A modern chip like ARM7 needs at least 700,000 transistors.  I am looking into a mid range core like BM32, around 200,000 Q, 32 bits C machine.

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:57:08 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>> US military is interested in 6502 programmers.  8085 is offered in
>> a rad-hardened version.  etc.  This when folks are walking around
>> with thousands of times the processing power in their phones!  :-/
>
>They are also used in ASIC, simple cores with low Qs.  4000 for 6502. 6000 for 8085.  A modern chip like ARM7 needs at least 700,000 transistors.  I am looking into a mid range core like BM32, around 200,000 Q, 32 bits C machine.

Why?  Qs are free.  Pins are expensive.

On Sunday, October 20, 2013 8:26:44 AM UTC-7, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:57:08 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> >> US military is interested in 6502 programmers.  8085 is offered in
> 
> >> a rad-hardened version.  etc.  This when folks are walking around
> 
> >> with thousands of times the processing power in their phones!  :-/
> 
> >
> 
> >They are also used in ASIC, simple cores with low Qs.  4000 for 6502. 6000 for 8085.  A modern chip like ARM7 needs at least 700,000 transistors.  I am looking into a mid range core like BM32, around 200,000 Q, 32 bits C machine.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Qs are free.  Pins are expensive.

But they are better used elsewhere.  Qs also complicates the synthesizer and often runs into tool limits.  I don't need VM, pipelines, predictive branchings, etc., just bare bone C machine.
 

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, October 20, 2013 8:26:44 AM UTC-7, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:57:08 -0700 (PDT), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> >> US military is interested in 6502 programmers.  8085 is offered in
>> 
>> >> a rad-hardened version.  etc.  This when folks are walking around
>> 
>> >> with thousands of times the processing power in their phones!  :-/
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> >They are also used in ASIC, simple cores with low Qs.  4000 for 6502. 6000 for 8085.  A modern chip like ARM7 needs at least 700,000 transistors.  I am looking into a mid range core like BM32, around 200,000 Q, 32 bits C machine.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Why?  Qs are free.  Pins are expensive.
>
>But they are better used elsewhere.  Qs also complicates the synthesizer and often runs into tool limits.  I don't need VM, pipelines, predictive branchings, etc., just bare bone C machine.

Synthesizer?  Tool limits?  Are you trying to reinvent the wheel on a
shoestring?  Why would you bother?  It's all been done for you and
it's cheap.  An M0 goes for about halfa buck, these days.

Hi Edward,

On 10/20/2013 7:57 AM, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> US military is interested in 6502 programmers.  8085 is offered in
>> a rad-hardened version.  etc.  This when folks are walking around
>> with thousands of times the processing power in their phones!  :-/
>
> They are also used in ASIC, simple cores with low Qs.  4000 for 6502.
> 6000 for 8085.  A modern chip like ARM7 needs at least 700,000
> transistors.

Yup.  And *most* applications really don't tax their processor.
Esp if you take advantage of smaller geometries/fabs to increase clock
speeds on those older designs.  Having the real estate to devote to
other "non CPU" functionality is usually a bigger win -- esp if it
eliminates another package or three!  (and, consequently, cuts power
dissipation by eliminating sets of pad drivers -- or, lets you
move to an even smaller package!)

Aside from address manipulation, think of how often your 32b register
is processing 8 or 16 bit values!

Many small processors could really benefit from larger address
spaces -- bigger TEXT and/or DATA -- esp if these could coexist
on the same die as the processor.

I particularly favor good counter/timer modules.  With just a few
"little" features you can enhance a tiny processor's capabilities
far beyond what a larger, "bloated" processor could do (e.g.,
effectively trim interrupt latencies to *0* in certain classes
of problems).

> I am looking into a mid range core like BM32, around 200,000 Q, 32 bits
> C machine.

Hi Tim,

On 10/20/2013 2:37 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> "Don Y" <this@isnotme.com> wrote in message
> news:l402nd$7gu$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> I worked on a "tester" for *core* memory for a US bomber in the
>> late 70's.  Core?  WTF??  (actually, there are good reasons to
>> use core -- size NOT being one of them!)
>
> I have some JAN microminiature tubes of recent production.  Good reasons,
> yes... just not many! ;-)

"Newer is always better", right?  :-/

I remember the first semiconductor memory boards we used in Nova2's
(or maybe 3's?).  Really cool to see all those (identical) chips
in neat rows and columns (I think it was 4K on a 16x16 board?).

[Of course, it had been similarly cool to see that fine "fabric" of
cores on a similarly sized board!]

But, it was *really* disappointing to "discover" (d'uh!) that the
machine no longer could *retain* it's program image in the absence
of power!  Every startup now required IPL from secondary storage.
 From the user's standpoint:  "Gee, that sucks!  Now, tell me again,
why is this an IMPROVEMENT??"