Tiller's "Intention Imprinting" Device?
in [Design]
|
From: hamilton on 28 May 2010 12:53 On 5/28/2010 8:09 AM, Winston wrote: > It is not a ROM, of course. It is a battery - backed > Random Access Memory. > > Please substitute 'Random Access Memory' and 'RAM' for each > instance of my phrases 'Read Only Memory' and 'ROM'. > > We now return you to the circus already in progress. > > --Winston I think you will need to review the schematics again. An EEPROM device has the letters ROM in it for a reason. Please check, I'll wait... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. PS: Look on page 3
From: Winston on 28 May 2010 13:47 On 5/28/2010 9:53 AM, hamilton wrote: > On 5/28/2010 8:09 AM, Winston wrote: >> It is not a ROM, of course. It is a battery - backed >> Random Access Memory. >> >> Please substitute 'Random Access Memory' and 'RAM' for each >> instance of my phrases 'Read Only Memory' and 'ROM'. >> >> We now return you to the circus already in progress. >> >> --Winston > > I think you will need to review the schematics again. > > An EEPROM device has the letters ROM in it for a reason. > > Please check, I'll wait... You are right, of course. It could easily be Atmel's AT28BV64B http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/doc0299.pdf Good catch! :) --Winston <-- Still trying to figure out how data are controlled by "imprinting 'psychoenergetic intention'".
From: Winston on 28 May 2010 14:17 On 5/28/2010 10:47 AM, Winston wrote: > On 5/28/2010 9:53 AM, hamilton wrote: >> On 5/28/2010 8:09 AM, Winston wrote: >>> It is not a ROM, of course. It is a battery - backed >>> Random Access Memory. >>> >>> Please substitute 'Random Access Memory' and 'RAM' for each >>> instance of my phrases 'Read Only Memory' and 'ROM'. >>> >>> We now return you to the circus already in progress. >>> >>> --Winston >> >> I think you will need to review the schematics again. >> >> An EEPROM device has the letters ROM in it for a reason. >> >> Please check, I'll wait... > > > You are right, of course. > > It could easily be Atmel's AT28BV64B Though Intersil's X28HC64 is more likely because it is shipped without 'byte write' protection enabled. http://www.intersil.com/data/fn/fn8109.pdf --Winston <-- Still thinks Bill and Walt need to smoke something other than their 'regular brand'.
From: hamilton on 28 May 2010 15:05 On 5/28/2010 12:17 PM, Winston wrote: >> >> It could easily be Atmel's AT28BV64B > > Though Intersil's X28HC64 is more likely because it > is shipped without 'byte write' protection enabled. > > http://www.intersil.com/data/fn/fn8109.pdf > > > --Winston <-- Still thinks Bill and Walt need to smoke > something other than their 'regular > brand'. Looking really close at the schematic, there is a RDY on pin 1. This is most likely an ancient NMOS device such as the Intel 2864. CMOS did not need the RDY line any more. hamilton
From: Winston on 28 May 2010 16:55
On 5/28/2010 12:05 PM, hamilton wrote: > On 5/28/2010 12:17 PM, Winston wrote: > >>> >>> It could easily be Atmel's AT28BV64B >> >> Though Intersil's X28HC64 is more likely because it >> is shipped without 'byte write' protection enabled. >> >> http://www.intersil.com/data/fn/fn8109.pdf >> >> >> --Winston <-- Still thinks Bill and Walt need to smoke >> something other than their 'regular >> brand'. > > Looking really close at the schematic, there is a RDY on pin 1. > > This is most likely an ancient NMOS device such as the Intel 2864. > > CMOS did not need the RDY line any more. For 250 smackers one would think they could afford something better than 'junkbox' parts. As the management at Intel hilariously used to say: "There is no right way to do a wrong thing". --Winston |