That was a rather interesting read. It's like a combination of archeology and technology. - Joe Oprysko
Right. That's what early vintage computing looks like - kinda. ;) Editorial follows, for those interested. Otherwise: thanks for this glimpse into a corner of chip-collecting. - H Doing some Web "archeology" found the originator of the decapitated chip. It's part of a recent project by Robert Baruch which he calls "Project 54/74" and hosted on YouTube and a wiki at project5474.org, and his Twitter account. He extracts chip die from original 7400 (and the industrial/military version 5400) logic chips, for annotation and imaging; then reverse engineers the schematic. He seems to be doing other vintage-computing stuff as well, with new S-100 boards and 3D printing, very 21st century. Tracing out chip-die sounds like rocket-science; but it's a matter of knowledge and tedium, recognizing visual patterns and following the likely logic. That's what the "fake" poster Ken Shirriff performed in his deconstruction Web post. TTL gate-level logic is usually described in 7400 documents, but not in detail. EE's in the 70's era (like me) were trained in semiconductors at almost the die level; the detailed knowledge is/was available in other textbooks for IC design specialists. And, it's something done in the microprocessor collecting world; tracing out early CPU dies. There may well be other such projects, for other chips including TTL. And it was professionally done in the era as literal reverse-engineering; competitors looking for ways to produce copies, learn design techniques, and so on. "Archeology and technology" overlap considerably; archeologists try to reverse engineer how structures or tools, homes, weapons were made. To me this is another example of what I call preservation by restoration and repair and Web publishing. I work at the S-100 board and chip level, not at the die level. As do others in this email list. Herb Johnson -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net
I read the article about this chip. The author posited, "Why would someone go to the effort of creating counterfeit memory chips that couldn't possibly work? The 74LS189 is a fairly obscure part, so I wouldn't have expected counterfeiting it to be worth the effort. " I would think the most logical explanation for this chip was not that someone went through the trouble of trying to pass off one chip for another, but rather that the manufacturing process simply put the wrong label on the chip. That would seem to me way more plausible than some kind of intentional subterfuge for a low demand chip in the first place. -----Original Message----- From: vcf-midatlantic [mailto:vcf-midatlantic-bounces@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org] On Behalf Of Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:05 AM To: vcf-midatlantic Cc: Herb Johnson Subject: [vcf-midatlantic] Fake 7400-series memory
That was a rather interesting read. It's like a combination > of archeology and technology. - Joe Oprysko
Right. That's what early vintage computing looks like - kinda. ;) Editorial follows, for those interested. Otherwise: thanks for this glimpse into a corner of chip-collecting. - H Doing some Web "archeology" found the originator of the decapitated chip. It's part of a recent project by Robert Baruch which he calls "Project 54/74" and hosted on YouTube and a wiki at project5474.org, and his Twitter account. He extracts chip die from original 7400 (and the industrial/military version 5400) logic chips, for annotation and imaging; then reverse engineers the schematic. He seems to be doing other vintage-computing stuff as well, with new S-100 boards and 3D printing, very 21st century. Tracing out chip-die sounds like rocket-science; but it's a matter of knowledge and tedium, recognizing visual patterns and following the likely logic. That's what the "fake" poster Ken Shirriff performed in his deconstruction Web post. TTL gate-level logic is usually described in 7400 documents, but not in detail. EE's in the 70's era (like me) were trained in semiconductors at almost the die level; the detailed knowledge is/was available in other textbooks for IC design specialists. And, it's something done in the microprocessor collecting world; tracing out early CPU dies. There may well be other such projects, for other chips including TTL. And it was professionally done in the era as literal reverse-engineering; competitors looking for ways to produce copies, learn design techniques, and so on. "Archeology and technology" overlap considerably; archeologists try to reverse engineer how structures or tools, homes, weapons were made. To me this is another example of what I call preservation by restoration and repair and Web publishing. I work at the S-100 board and chip level, not at the die level. As do others in this email list. Herb Johnson -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net
Unless someone came across a large stash of the DTMF chips, got them for next to nothing, and was trying to pawn them off as something useful. -J On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:16 AM, W2HX via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
I read the article about this chip. The author posited, "Why would someone go to the effort of creating counterfeit memory chips that couldn't possibly work? The 74LS189 is a fairly obscure part, so I wouldn't have expected counterfeiting it to be worth the effort. "
I would think the most logical explanation for this chip was not that someone went through the trouble of trying to pass off one chip for another, but rather that the manufacturing process simply put the wrong label on the chip. That would seem to me way more plausible than some kind of intentional subterfuge for a low demand chip in the first place.
-----Original Message----- From: vcf-midatlantic [mailto:vcf-midatlantic-bounces@lists. vintagecomputerfederation.org] On Behalf Of Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:05 AM To: vcf-midatlantic Cc: Herb Johnson Subject: [vcf-midatlantic] Fake 7400-series memory
That was a rather interesting read. It's like a combination > of archeology and technology. - Joe Oprysko
Right. That's what early vintage computing looks like - kinda. ;) Editorial follows, for those interested. Otherwise: thanks for this glimpse into a corner of chip-collecting. - H
Doing some Web "archeology" found the originator of the decapitated chip. It's part of a recent project by Robert Baruch which he calls "Project 54/74" and hosted on YouTube and a wiki at project5474.org, and his Twitter account. He extracts chip die from original 7400 (and the industrial/military version 5400) logic chips, for annotation and imaging; then reverse engineers the schematic. He seems to be doing other vintage-computing stuff as well, with new S-100 boards and 3D printing, very 21st century.
Tracing out chip-die sounds like rocket-science; but it's a matter of knowledge and tedium, recognizing visual patterns and following the likely logic. That's what the "fake" poster Ken Shirriff performed in his deconstruction Web post. TTL gate-level logic is usually described in 7400 documents, but not in detail. EE's in the 70's era (like me) were trained in semiconductors at almost the die level; the detailed knowledge is/was available in other textbooks for IC design specialists.
And, it's something done in the microprocessor collecting world; tracing out early CPU dies. There may well be other such projects, for other chips including TTL. And it was professionally done in the era as literal reverse-engineering; competitors looking for ways to produce copies, learn design techniques, and so on.
"Archeology and technology" overlap considerably; archeologists try to reverse engineer how structures or tools, homes, weapons were made. To me this is another example of what I call preservation by restoration and repair and Web publishing. I work at the S-100 board and chip level, not at the die level. As do others in this email list.
Herb Johnson
-- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net
-- Jason Perkins 313 355 0085
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:16 AM, W2HX via vcf-midatlantic
I would think the most logical explanation for [faking] this chip was not that someone went through the trouble of trying to pass off one chip for another, but rather that the manufacturing process simply put the wrong label on the chip.
Here's the choices - someone in China relabeled a chip; or a semiconductor production assembly line for analog/digital chips, put a TTL device label on the chip instead? And if the latter, how did devices decades-old, which obviously failed any quality-control, end up available today and likely in some quantity? I think "China relabel" is more likely. There's a LOT of relabeling going on today. Typically, standard chips are relabeled as high-reliability expanded-temp chips, which is harder to detect. This fraud was stupid, at some level. On 8/24/2017 11:28 AM, Jason Perkins wrote:
Unless someone came across a large stash of the DTMF chips, got them for next to nothing, and was trying to pawn them off as something useful.
Neither chip is very "useful". I suppose someone making a TTL computer today would use a 74LS181 and some other 18X chips too. Ebay prices are one to a few dollars each. But who can second-guess the next person making money through chip fraud? This is what a race to the bottom looks like. Herb -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com or try later herbjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT info
As Dan mentioned, this is probably the result of a mistake in a legitimate, but often poorly communicated, Chinese salvage operation. There are shops in China that specialize in refurbished ICs, which may be old stock, board pulls, et c. Typically the old chips get blasted clean with a mild abrasive (often ground walnut hulls, I'm told), dipped in flux, tinned in a solder pot, then re-etched with a current production datecode and the part number. It kind of loses legitimacy when they put a manufacturer's trademarked logo on the IC, though. Having bought many hundreds of refurbished ICs from China -- usually things that have been out of production for years -- I've found that most of the sellers and brokers have a hard time articulating that the chips are refurbished in terms that your average English-speaking purchaser would understand. There are of course outright frauds. As an example, I recently purchased 200x Motorola 6821 PIAs for the runs of reproduction OSI boards we're working on. They were refurb/relabel ICs with a 2015 datecode. They came with the Motorola logo etched into the top, but the seller was very clear that they were a mish-mash of manufacturers and that the ICs were solder pulls, recycled from old boards but tested after refurbishing. This was 100% acceptable on hobbyist boards, and so far every single PIA has passed test. So, how can they sell PIAs so cheaply? I suspect they're being paid to take eWaste, subsidized by the Chinese government to not just dump it in a pit, subsidized on the tax/shipping since it's an export business, and they are in the end selling the IC for money. It's like being paid to do scrap cleanouts, but with government assistance along the whole way. Thanks, Jonathan On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic < vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:16 AM, W2HX via vcf-midatlantic
I would think the most logical explanation for [faking] this chip was not that someone went through the trouble of trying to pass off one chip for another, but rather that the manufacturing process simply put the wrong label on the chip.
Here's the choices - someone in China relabeled a chip; or a semiconductor production assembly line for analog/digital chips, put a TTL device label on the chip instead? And if the latter, how did devices decades-old, which obviously failed any quality-control, end up available today and likely in some quantity?
I think "China relabel" is more likely. There's a LOT of relabeling going on today. Typically, standard chips are relabeled as high-reliability expanded-temp chips, which is harder to detect. This fraud was stupid, at some level.
On 8/24/2017 11:28 AM, Jason Perkins wrote:
Unless someone came across a large stash of the DTMF chips, got them for next to nothing, and was trying to pawn them off as something useful.
Neither chip is very "useful". I suppose someone making a TTL computer today would use a 74LS181 and some other 18X chips too. Ebay prices are one to a few dollars each. But who can second-guess the next person making money through chip fraud? This is what a race to the bottom looks like.
Herb
-- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey in the USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net preserve, recover, restore 1970's computing email: hjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT com or try later herbjohnson AT retrotechnology DOT info
I think "China relabel" is more likely. There's a LOT of relabeling going on today. Typically, standard chips are relabeled as high-reliability expanded-temp chips, which is harder to detect. This fraud was stupid, at some level.
8 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttjAew3UwjA A bunch of other videos exist on youtube, the audio guys get the brunt of it I believe. Friend picked up some MOS SID chips from eBay, fake. I'm surprised they fake such cheap ICs, less surprised they fake more expensive semiconductors. Usually if a chip is laser engraved for the info and not silkscreened I assume it's a Chinese clone. Some clones work, some are total outright frauds. The problem is eBay and aliexpress are indeed a lot cheaper, and it's not like all the other electronics aren't produced in China with real to-spec chips. So it's a roll of the dice.
On 08/24/2017 11:49 AM, Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
Neither chip is very "useful". I suppose someone making a TTL computer today would use a 74LS181 and some other 18X chips too. Ebay prices are one to a few dollars each. But who can second-guess the next person making money through chip fraud? This is what a race to the bottom looks like.
74LS189s sell for a couple of dollars, but the Chinese company probably paid a couple of dollars for a few THOUSAND of the DTMF generators. This economic structure works in China. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
On 08/24/2017 11:16 AM, W2HX via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
I would think the most logical explanation for this chip was not that someone went through the trouble of trying to pass off one chip for another, but rather that the manufacturing process simply put the wrong label on the chip. That would seem to me way more plausible than some kind of intentional subterfuge for a low demand chip in the first place.
That may seem to be more plausible on the surface, but that's not what's going on. As far as selling fake 74LS189s, look at it this way. Try not to apply American labor economics to the situation. There's a market for 74LS189s. It's a very small one, but it does exist. A Chinese businessman comes across a few hundred thousand completely useless chips, like DTMF generators. A few searches on completed eBay listings tells him which 16-pin DIPs sell and which ones don't. Chip labeling equipment is easily reconfigured on the fly (think date codes), so he makes a few hundred "74LS189s" and puts them on eBay. And a few hundred of these, a few hundred of those...and of whichever ones sell, he makes more. And while he's putting them on eBay, he's also shopping them around to companies that perform equipment repairs, to the military parts channels (through a front), etc. Just think of what you could do in business if you had access to a labor pool that is endless and essentially free, all of the cast-off equipment that American corporations are liquidating when they shut down factories, government subsidies, lots of greed, and a complete lack of scruples. That's half of the businessmen in China today. This is all extensively studied, well-documented, and is not a new problem. It is a very large problem in the electronics industry today, and not just because of occasionally inconveniencing a hobbyist. We have fake components getting into military supply chains by the tens of thousands. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
participants (6)
-
Dave McGuire -
Ethan -
Herb Johnson -
Jason Perkins -
systems_glitch -
W2HX