f94sbu 0 #126 February 7, 2013 QuoteWonder if the ASIC mfr forgot to put in adequate "clamps" on inputs? The simplest clamps are diode resistor networks that take excessive voltage to ground. Done right they can give ICs pretty decent ESD protection. But high voltage from ESD is sometimes like a big mean gorilla. It doesn't respect fences or cages. With the risk of going way of topic... Pads on a chip (the part of the silicon where the chip is connected to the outside package via one or more bonding wires) come with an ESD protecting structure by default. It is part of the standard cell library from the silicon manufacturer. However, they usually don't provide protection in the >10kV range simply because it is impossible to build a protective structure at the same time combining that with the thin gate oxide required for modern asics. The level of protection that a pad gets is fairly random as it depends on a lot of properties around the pad and how many binding wires that are used for the interconnect. However, the manufacturer is guaranteeing a lower limit of the protection of course. If you create a design based on one revision of a chip, it is possible that another revision may be more susceptible (still within the legal limit). If you want your design to withstand higher discharge pulses, it may then be required to add additional protection outside the chip. And in this case, I would assume that there is a lot of external protection anyway simply because the level that the unit can handle is way beyond what's normally required. The unit has the CE stamp which means that it can withstand a certain level of ESD ( 4 kV contact discharge, 8 kV air discharge). That doesn't mean that you can have discharges higher than this level, it just states that it is a reasonable level to require from an electronics manufacturer. If the requirement would be to withstand >20kV pulses, we wouldn't see the smartphones and other gadgets that we have today as it is impossible to fully protect them. Hence why the CE limit is lower than what can be seen in a real world scenario. I cannot find anywhere in the Cypres manual where it states what level of ESD that it can take, so given the CE stamp all a lawyer could do is to claim that it does not fulfill those requirements. Which I am pretty sure that it does, however, I can definitely understand why Airtec wants to go beyond that. Regardless how much protection that is added nothing can be made 100% safe of course. This applies to any of the equipment that we use. If someone isn't happy about that uncertainty then I suggest that they dont skydive at all since there are a lot of other uncertainties around them that are much more likely to kill them than ESD causing their AAD to malfunction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 466 #127 February 7, 2013 A quick question for you. Why do you feel that an open rig is more vulnerable than a closed rig? The Cypres control box is in the reserve pack (at least in every rig I have seen). My control box is actually against the side of my reserve pack tray and you can see the outline. The display head/human interface on most rigs doesn't appear to be more or less protected with a packed or unpacked rig. I'm not trying to be a smart arse. I think earlier in the thread Billvon also implied that the packing mat is where it is vulnerable.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 279 #128 February 7, 2013 I've only seen a little info on Cypres ESD testing. That was in their report for the PIA's TS-120. I think the name of the doc out there may be TS120cV3b.pdf. Attached is a screen shot of the section, since the pdf is protected from copying. They mention Mil Std 331B, 25 kV, etc, stuff I can't comment on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 41 #129 February 7, 2013 http://www.pia.com/piapubs/TSDocuments/TS120cV3b.pdf"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleGobble 0 #130 February 7, 2013 Quotehttp://www.pia.com/piapubs/TSDocuments/TS120cV3b.pdf Yup, more than happy to continue buying CYPRES even after this current issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f94sbu 0 #131 February 7, 2013 QuoteA quick question for you. Why do you feel that an open rig is more vulnerable than a closed rig? The Cypres control box is in the reserve pack (at least in every rig I have seen). My control box is actually against the side of my reserve pack tray and you can see the outline. The display head/human interface on most rigs doesn't appear to be more or less protected with a packed or unpacked rig. I'm not trying to be a smart arse. I think earlier in the thread Billvon also implied that the packing mat is where it is vulnerable. It is a good and valid question! My argument for that is the fact that the unit is (in most riggs) less accessible when the rigg is closed compared to an open rigg. Step one in solving any ESD problem is to isolate components by distance so that the likelihood of a discharge is lower. If a discharge occurs, the impact is also lowered as the 'spark' is losing some of its energy having to travel over a longer distance. (This is all empirical knowledge after ESD protecting lots of consumer electronic products). If it is possible to expose to the unit to the same amount of ESD on a closed rigg compared to an open one, then I guess that the issue can still occur. However, we would need more data on the actual issue itself to be sure of course. For example, it is very likely the susceptibility to ESD is different depending on which part of the unit you are touching. Areas where there are cable attachments are usually more exposed. If I were Airtec, I would have tested a closed rigg and compared with an open rigg to get some more data, but I cannot speak for them of course. The display head is (according to the test document that Airtec published) tested for ESD and if the ESD takes out the display unit, the testing shows that the control unit continues to function. As I don't know the nature of this particular issue, I cannot tell if the discharges taking out the device has been done on the main unit or the display, but given Airtecs comment on closed vs open rigg, I can only assume that the main issue was the control unit. Dragging a rigg across a packing mat is probably one of the more plausible situations where you are building up static around the device. Once the rigg is packed and you put it on, the charges have either discharged, or didn't exist in the first place. If there was ever a discharge when you put your rigg on, trust me, you would notice. I have been playing enough with our ESD testing equipment to know that even low levels of charges hurt like a bitch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #132 February 7, 2013 Quote The display head is (according to the test document that Airtec published) tested for ESD and if the ESD takes out the display unit, the testing shows that the control unit continues to function. As I don't know the nature of this particular issue, I cannot tell if the discharges taking out the device has been done on the main unit or the display, but given Airtecs comment on closed vs open rigg, I can only assume that the main issue was the control unit . There is no control unit (the separate module). There is a button of remote control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #133 February 7, 2013 why dont you guys just lie about light not flashing and turn it in??? once it is their hand they aren't gonna send it straight back without updatesBernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
377 22 #134 February 8, 2013 Do it yourself ESD generator. See photo attached. Cheap ESD analyser on eBay:http://www.ebay.com/itm/Voyager-EA1000-ESD-Analyzer-Electrostatic-Test-Tester-antistatic-Used-/150991812207?pt=BI_Books_Manuals&hash=item2327d0366f 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #135 February 8, 2013 Quotewhy dont you guys just lie about light not flashing and turn it in??? once it is their hand they aren't gonna send it straight back without updateswell you can try, but you will be quickly categorized as a liar... If it doesn't flash, the display still shows 0v , and is like "frozen" on a normal ON display. If it turns OFF, it is not frozenscissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 466 #136 February 8, 2013 QuoteQuotewhy dont you guys just lie about light not flashing and turn it in??? once it is their hand they aren't gonna send it straight back without updateswell you can try, but you will be quickly categorized as a liar... If it doesn't flash, the display still shows 0v , and is like "frozen" on a normal ON display. If it turns OFF, it is not frozen well on a reasonable number of rigs it is genuinely difficult to press the button through the plastic and get a response. The SB tells you if it doesn't flash it is faulty. My guess is that many people will genuinely worry at the lack of response in these circumstances and send the unit in. Doesnt mean they are lying, simply cautious. As normal with jumpers every single one of these incidents will be classified as failures. So i expect to see the reported failures rise dramatically over the next few months.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #137 February 8, 2013 Quote well on a reasonable number of rigs it is genuinely difficult to press the button through the plastic and get a response. The SB tells you if it doesn't flash it is faulty. My guess is that many people will genuinely worry at the lack of response in these circumstances and send the unit in. Doesnt mean they are lying, simply cautious. As normal with jumpers every single one of these incidents will be classified as failures. So i expect to see the reported failures rise dramatically over the next few months.does that mean that they are having trouble turning it ON ? seriously ?scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 466 #138 February 8, 2013 QuoteQuote well on a reasonable number of rigs it is genuinely difficult to press the button through the plastic and get a response. The SB tells you if it doesn't flash it is faulty. My guess is that many people will genuinely worry at the lack of response in these circumstances and send the unit in. Doesnt mean they are lying, simply cautious. As normal with jumpers every single one of these incidents will be classified as failures. So i expect to see the reported failures rise dramatically over the next few months.does that mean that they are having trouble turning it ON ? seriously ? Yes I've experienced a few rigs that it is more difficult/temperamental to turn the AAD on (both Vigil and Cypres). The plastic on the rig itself is not very pliable and requires more force than normal. That can mean 2 or 3 attempts to get it to turn on as the timing gets screwed. I'm not implying that they require 10 minutes of fiddling and messing around.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dpreguy 14 #139 February 9, 2013 This isn't a reply to f94, but a general question. A long time ago the Cypres 1 units were thought to be affected by the pilot keying the mike to transmit. Or something like that. The Cypres factory solution back then was to insert the display unit into a "silver sleeve". This was a little plastic tube/sleeve which was somewhat opaque but still allowed the user to see the readings. Supposedly shielded the unit from the mike keying. I saved a couple and put them in my Cypres notebook, just because I am a collector. Are we about to see "silver sleeves" (covers) for the display and/or the box itself make a comeback? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 41 #140 February 9, 2013 Good memory! I have no idea if that's a possible solution but here's the links to the old SBs about the silver sleeve. Just posting this for those that are interested in history Original silver sleeve SB from Airtec http://www.cypres.cc/images/stories/storypictures/silversleeve1997.jpg later update silver sleeve - no longer supplied on new units http://www.cypres.cc/images/stories/storypictures/silversleeve1999.jpg"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abedy 0 #141 February 9, 2013 Quote Edit: I have no idea if that's true in this case though. Oh come on, not only you refuse to accept that Airtec has to deal with a problem a supplier caused, you also at least imply that they are lying? But hey, it's an AAD thread, keep shooting... I met Helmut Cloth several times and have also visited the Airtec manufacture and from what I have learned firsthand I can tell you that they really work at very high standards. Heck, it happened to about 10 of 30,000 units and - if at all - 1 in 30,000 with a pack mat fire. They offered a solution that is inconvenient but as far as I see it, balances the wish of folks to keep jumping with the probability of your very unit going faulty even if you comply with the SB (should then go down to ,000000000000000001% or something) I've jumped the CYPRES in my sports rig for 2 years with it being "vulnerable" and didn't wet my pants (as I couldn't be aware of the condition) The worst thing that might happen is it freezes. But what do I know... And NO, I do NEITHER work for Airtec NOR do I get any money from them for posting here. I have just been satisfied with their products for 10+ years and won't turn a moaner about this issue. This is also my last post here, as I know that these discussions very fast start spinning around one issue with hardcore zealots flaming each other. Not my cuppa.The sky is not the limit. The ground is. The Society of Skydiving Ducks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #142 February 10, 2013 QuoteOh come on, not only you refuse to accept that Airtec has to deal with a problem a supplier caused, you also at least imply that they are lying? Jesus... that isn't remotely what I posted about. Someone asked what "higher level of integration" meant and I responded with what the semiconductor industry usually means when they use that phrase. Then I said that I didn't know for sure that Airtec meant the same thing... How the fuck does that translate into me suggesting that they are lying?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swoopin 0 #143 February 10, 2013 QuoteThe worst thing that might happen is it freezes. But what do I know... The worst thing is that the unit may fire when you do not want it to. One already has (on the packing mat after a jump) and Airtec have stated that this problem is related and caused by static... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 466 #144 February 10, 2013 when it comes to equipment like harnesses, reserves and AAD's I think it is a good idea to put brand loyalty aside and consciously question the data. The worst that can happen is significantly more than 'just freezes'. I'd say no AAD manufacturer would knowingly mislead people, but there is tremendous pressure by the community to release information and fixes quickly. That can result in incomplete or even completely inaccurate information being released.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abedy 0 #145 February 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe worst thing that might happen is it freezes. But what do I know... The worst thing is that the unit may fire when you do not want it to. One already has (on the packing mat after a jump) and Airtec have stated that this problem is related and caused by static... One more, last answer. If it should fire on the packing mat it ain't "worst case", it just is inconvenient as you have to have your reserve repacked and have the CYPRES serviced (incl. new cutter which I understand will be shipped free of charge) It can't fire in the plane and especially not in freefall or during canopy ride, just read the FAQ, answers to questions 14 to 17.The sky is not the limit. The ground is. The Society of Skydiving Ducks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abedy 0 #146 February 10, 2013 Quote when it comes to equipment like harnesses, reserves and AAD's I think it is a good idea to put brand loyalty aside and consciously question the data. The worst that can happen is significantly more than 'just freezes'. I'd say no AAD manufacturer would knowingly mislead people, but there is tremendous pressure by the community to release information and fixes quickly. That can result in incomplete or even completely inaccurate information being released. I'd rather say you carefully read the information provided by the manufacturer instead of blustering in the forum, huh? The information is provided, and if ya read it: Freezing is what MIGHT happen; firing won't. EOTThe sky is not the limit. The ground is. The Society of Skydiving Ducks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,354 #147 February 10, 2013 Hi Carsten, QuoteIt can't fire in the plane and especially not in freefall or during canopy ride Remember that this is the same company who adamantly said that a CYPRES could never fire while under canopy. I was on the dz the day that Troy K made one fire. I helped him get rigged up and saw the results. AirTec virtually called him a liar and stood by their position that it could not happen. Until a jumper got killed because it did. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 466 #148 February 10, 2013 Quote Quote when it comes to equipment like harnesses, reserves and AAD's I think it is a good idea to put brand loyalty aside and consciously question the data. The worst that can happen is significantly more than 'just freezes'. I'd say no AAD manufacturer would knowingly mislead people , but there is tremendous pressure by the community to release information and fixes quickly. That can result in incomplete or even completely inaccurate information being released. I'd rather say you carefully read the information provided by the manufacturer instead of blustering in the forum, huh? The information is provided, and if ya read it: Freezing is what MIGHT happen; firing won't. EOT ok i had read that before and the article that 0eter %hapman posted by Airtek on their ESD testing procedure. In the ESD testing document they state the reason for high levels of static DURING deployment. Which statment is correct, as these statments directly conflict each other?Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,190 #149 February 11, 2013 Talk about "ESD" and where and when it can occur and what the effects may be is just techno mumbo jumbo to me. The bottom line is that these units contain a component that have caused a misfire and therefore need to be replaced. Experienced jumpers with proven ability to perform EPs under real world conditions only receive a small benefit from using an AAD. Any risk of a misfire outweighs that benefit in my estimation. And that of my wife, who actually owns one of these. (04/12 DOM, same as the reported firing on the mat) Accordingly I have removed it from her rig as she requested. This means it is nothing but an expensive paper weight until it is repaired. So I have sent it to SSK with a request that it be repaired under the terms of their warranty. I anticipate that she will be jumping without an AAD for the whole season here in Canada. I don't like it very much, but I can't say that I am angry with Airtec. They are between a rock and a hard place here. They could ground them all until repaired, or let people use them until repairs can be scheduled. They seem to have made the calculation that the potential good of having an AAD is greater than the potential risk of a catastrophe caused by a misfire. I sincerely hope they are correct. KenAlways remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #150 February 11, 2013 QuoteIt can't fire in the plane and especially not in freefall or during canopy ride, just read the FAQ, answers to questions 14 to 17. THEY say it can't fire.... They also thought these units were perfectly fine - Till they were not. Simple fact is that they are making a guess based on a problem that they didn't know they created. I'd say being aware that they might also not know what else might happen is a very valid position. Blind faith is foolish."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
