RE: Exorcisor on a chip

G'day John,

I'm torn. I think it would be better to use a more common chip like the
22V10, that can be programmed by many programmers. But if the
interconnects are too complicated (and that's what Joe's email seemed to
indicate) then no one's going to do it without the PCB.

Also, this may be a silly question, but would the PCB for the 22V10's be
much smaller than the original PCBs in the Cinematronics Exercisor? If
the 22V10's are about the same cost as all the 15 74XXX chips in the
Cinematronics Exercisor, then does it make sense to use this 22V10
approach. All it seems to do is save some soldering of pins (and maybe
a little cost of making PCB since it would be smaller)?

Assuming a PCB would have to be made for the 22V10 approach, I'd suggest
just duplicating original PCB in the Cinematronics Exercisor. That is
unless you can produce a true "Exercisor on a chip" solution. Wouldn't
it be cool to have a single chip solution that you literally solder the
connector's wires to the chip's pins! The ultimate solution...no PCB at
all!

                Steven S Ozdemir
                sso@dsc.com

ps - Actually, in practice, I'd solder the connector's wires to the pins
of a socket and then plug the single chip into the socket. No reason to
expose the chip's pins to my lousy soldering abilities!

>----------
>From: linvjw@VNET.IBM.COM[SMTP:linvjw@VNET.IBM.COM]
>Sent: Monday, December 22, 1997 9:39 AM
>To: vectorlist@spies.com
>Cc: linvjw@VNET.IBM.COM
>Subject: Re: Exorcisor on a chip
>
>> 2) Is there any interest in getting the Exorcisor
>> on ~3 22V10s?
>
>I'd be interested in this. How bad would the interconnect be? How
>about laying-out a PCB? Soldering a few chips on a PCB wouldn't be too
>bad IMHO...
>
>At least the 22v10's are easy to come by and many have programmers
>capable of programming them.
>
>John
>
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| John W. Linville To Be, Rather Than To Seem. |
>| linvjw@vnet.ibm.com I will not torment the emotionally frail... :-) |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
Received on Mon Dec 22 10:38:09 1997