1702A programming (was Bugbooks - Mark 80 )

From: Dwight Elvey <elvey_at_hal.com>
Date: Tue Jan 26 12:10:13 1999

Dave Dameron <ddameron_at_earthlink.net> wrote:
> At 11:10 PM 1/25/99 +0000, Tony wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Hi I'm looking fro 1702's, not 1702A's which are quite common
> >> but 1702's. You wouldn't happen to have any of these would
> >> you. I'll trade you 1702A's for any you might have.
> >
> >What's the real difference between a 1702 and a 1702A? I must admit that
> >I am not a great one for historical correctness, so I tend to use
> >'updated' parts if I happen to have them to hand
> >
> The 1702's had 10% of the program duty cycle of the 1702A, so took 10x
> longer to
> program. The voltages were the same. I don't know what actually was revised on
> the chip, larger output/program transistors?
> -Dave

Hi Dave
 The 1702A's also required that the address be complemented before
the Vdd and Vgg were brought low. The 1702's didn't seem to need
this and Vdd and Vgg were left at there low states the entire time.
This also is a problem because the programmer I have doesn't
switch Vdd and Vgg.
Dwight
Received on Tue Jan 26 1999 - 12:10:13 GMT