[HN Gopher] Reverse-engineering a 1960s hybrid flip flop module ... ___________________________________________________________________ Reverse-engineering a 1960s hybrid flip flop module with X-ray CT scans Author : zdw Score : 54 points Date : 2022-08-05 18:01 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.righto.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.righto.com) | gumby wrote: | My dad described using modules like this. Glad to see some | confirming evidence. | kens wrote: | Yes, hybrid modules like this were popular in the 1960s and | produced by multiple manufacturers. Eventually, of course, | integrated circuits replaced them for most applications. | baking wrote: | Why do you refer to them as "hybrid" modules. Seems like a | standard transistor logic circuit of the era to me. | kens wrote: | That's what they called modules that were built from active | and passive components. As opposed to a "monolithic" | integrated circuit. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Technically, a hybrid integrated circuit is just a bunch of | individual components that are integrated together into a | single package vs a monolithic integrated circuit which is | your typical "everything on a chip of silicon". | kens wrote: | Author here for your X-ray questions... | iasay wrote: | No questions just appreciation. Your blog and Marc's channel | are about the most interesting things I've read and watched for | years (as an ex EE). Pure quality content. Thank you. | kens wrote: | Thanks for the nice comment! | [deleted] | skywal_l wrote: | What kind of file format the CT machine produce? DICOM? What's | the spatial resolution of the model? How big was the file for | this component? Could you make the file available? Are they | using webgl to display the volume in 3D? | kens wrote: | The system is web-based so I don't know about the underlying | file format. They've downloaded files to a 3-D printer so | it's something usable. The spatial resolution depends on the | size of the object (which determines how close it is to the | sensor). In one scan we saw the bond wires inside a | transistor in a unit, so the resolution can be very good. For | a large, dense metal object the resolution is lower. | | This scan is online at: https://app.lumafield.com/project/afa | 60fd5-308d-41da-a0c6-14... You can manipulate the scan | yourself after creating an account. | skywal_l wrote: | So apparently the volume is loaded in 3 chunks 95MB (285M). | Looking at the code they are indeed using WebGL (through | Three.js) for the raytracing. I don't think it's a DICOM | format, at least not on the frontend side as I don't see | the usual DICOM fields used in 3D rendering in the code. | They have multiple versions of React bundled, I don't know | what's the story about that. | | Anyway, thanks for the link, nice piece of technology. | dreamcompiler wrote: | > The reverse-engineering solves one mystery about the flip flop | ... Looking at the reverse-engineered schematic, though, explains | that a sharp pulse on the J pin will act like the clock, sending | a pulse through the capacitor, turning off the transistor, and | causing a high output. I assume this behavior is not intentional, | and J inputs are expected not to transition as sharply as when I | touched it with a ground wire. | | This paragraph caused chills to run up my spine. The fact that | they used AC coupling on the clock line seemed clever because it | saved a couple of transistors, but the fact that they depended on | J and K always being "slow" was cringeworthy. If J and K were | somehow not slow, the device would become "not a proper flip | flop." And yet it went to the Moon, so I guess they knew | something I don't. | | One other thought: When Ken grounded the J line, he was attaching | it to essentially zero impedance to ground. The clock line will | never have zero impedance, but it's reasonable to expect it to | have lower impedance than regular signal lines. The sensitivity | on J and K might be more a function of signal impedance than | rise/fall time per se. Of course the two things are not | unrelated. Potato/potahto. | kens wrote: | Good comments. I don't have details on impedance vs fall time | so I don't know how big the safety margin was. But this | behavior caused me _so_ much confusion when I was testing the | module to reverse engineer it. | | By the way, this modules wasn't used in flight; it was part of | a test box that was used on the ground. The Updata Link box | onboard the spacecraft was built with different technology. | Just want to avoid confusion :-) | iasay wrote: | Fresh out of university as an EE in my first job I was | surprised to find that the rule was _" if it conforms to the | tests then it works"_. Sometimes the tests were poorly designed | or were narrow enough only to test the happy paths. Box ticked, | ship to customer. | | I eventually moved to software at which point I discovered that | it's even worse here. It's at least 10^6x more difficult to | kill people though and you usually don't have to get off your | chair to undo the carnage. | Aloha wrote: | Often its "If it _appears_ to pass the test it ships ". | pixl97 wrote: | > "if it conforms to the tests then it works". | | Um, but what if someone does something outside of the tests. | | "Well, then it breaks". | | Yes, but this is software, how does it break? | | "Hopefully not badly and insecurely" | [deleted] | bee_rider wrote: | Yes in software we don't even have to worry about trying to | get the magic smoke back into the chip (very difficult). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-05 23:00 UTC)