Searching \ for 'Re[3]: 16c84 reprogram cycle life?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=16C
Search entire site for: '16c84 reprogram cycle life?'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Re[3]: 16c84 reprogram cycle life?'
1997\02\03@200519 by Brian Boles

flavicon
face
    The reprogrammable lifetime is in the datasheets.  It is called
    "Endurance" and is specified in terms of E/W meaning erase/write
    cycles.  It is min 1Meg and typ 10Meg for data memory.  It is min 100
    and typ 1000 for program memory.  Data memory uses a redundant coding
    method to increase the endurance above that of the program memory.

    Rgds, Brian.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: 16c84 reprogram cycle life?
Author:  David Tait <spam_OUTdavidTakeThisOuTspamcomms.ee.man.ac.uk> at Internet_Exchange
Date:    1/28/97 5:48 PM


Hi Brian,

> Yes, it is the same technology.

Thanks for letting me know.  I guess I would need to know a lot
more about the physics of the failure mechanisms and something
about statistics before I could use the test memory as a reliable
measure of EEPROM endurance.  Having 8 spare locations to play
with helps I suppose.  Do you think it would be possible to
predict the reprogrammable lifetime of a particular PIC with
any accuracy?

Cheers,

David

1997\02\04@083323 by David Tait

flavicon
face
Brian Boles wrote:

>      The reprogrammable lifetime is in the datasheets.  It is called
>      "Endurance" and is specified in terms of E/W meaning erase/write
>      cycles.  It is min 1Meg and typ 10Meg for data memory.  It is min 100
>      and typ 1000 for program memory.

I know that this applies *on average* but my question was can we make
a better estimate of the endurance of a *particular* PIC.  For a given
chip it would be nice to know its endurance more exactly than "greater
than 100, typically 1000" E/W cycles.  One PICLIST contributor said
his PIC died at 200 cycles which is clearly in spec but he might have
been able to use his PIC more productively if he knew a-priori that it
would die at that point (OK, I admit this is penny pinching).

I was proposing that the 8 (or more if you sacrifice the ID locs) test
memory words be used to estimate endurance of a particular 16C84/16F84
before it is first used.  I hoped you could shed some light on whether
this idea is a non-starter.  It may be that the test memory has
already been used by Microchip quality control for example.  If the
idea has any merit it could be a "value-added" feature of an '84
programmer.

David
--
http://www.man.ac.uk/~mbhstdj

1997\02\04@213135 by John Payson

picon face
> I was proposing that the 8 (or more if you sacrifice the ID locs) test
> memory words be used to estimate endurance of a particular 16C84/16F84
> before it is first used.  I hoped you could shed some light on whether
> this idea is a non-starter.  It may be that the test memory has
> already been used by Microchip quality control for example.  If the
> idea has any merit it could be a "value-added" feature of an '84
> programmer.

Actually, an idea I'd like to incorporate into my programmer, if I can get any
"official" word that it'll work, is an automatic chip-detect, at least for the
'84 (and probably '822) parts since they require a different algorithm from
the other parts.  While the '84 programming algorithm would probably work okay
on other OTP parts, it put extreme stress on the 16C622JW I (accidentally) ran
it on; after erasing that chip, the locations I had previously programmed as
zeros could not be rewritten but would permanently read as ones.  If I could
determine whether a chip was an '84 versus "something else" before I program-
med it that would help greatly in avoiding this kind of disaster.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997 , 1998 only
- Today
- New search...