On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:09:06 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Bob, > >Thought you may find this "blast from the past" of interest... > >This discussion came up on the Microchip BBS way back in 1993/1994 = (actually >it came up many times -- it was like an old penny that kept returning). >Check out the comments (regarding heat damaging chips, not UV itself) = from >Stan D'Souza from Microchip Technology: > > >Date: Monday, December 20, 1993 9:11pm = /APPLICN >From: Sdsouza Msg#: = 15751 > To: Colonel > Re: UV DESTROYS! > (Reply to #15701) > >Colonel, > >How warm or rather hot were the parts when you put them in the eraser >for 3 days. Heat does more damage than UV light to any silicon device. I >suggest a review of Millman's Microelectronics should explain what is >happening after all if we only concluded by what we observe, then we >could walk off the edge of the earth. > >-Stan. > > >Date: Thursday, February 17, 1994 8:13pm = /APPLICN >From: Sdsouza Msg#: = 24178 > To: Kenmun > Re: Overdose on UV? > (Reply to #19395) >Ken, > >I wish everyone would quit the quotes and counter quotes and pick up a >good device Physics book instead. I am sorry that it would not be >possible to explain Semiconductor 101 in this message, but there is no >way in hell you could over-erase a part. So is Intel Full of &$@#, no. >However I would like some one to pick up a device which has been exposed >to 7500Wsec/cm2. Temperature can really kill a part and I don't think >any one can argue that point. SInce UV light does generate heat, there >is a correlation to erasing and eventual life of the part and that is >why most eproms fail after approx 100 erase/write cycles. > >I hope I've managed to confuse the issue one more time!!! > >-Stan. I think one source of confusion aristes from the fact that there IS a = finite number of program/erase cycles, but it's the programming, not the erasure that's the wear = mechanism, like on eeproms. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu