SMD desoldering tutorial?

[DarkMatter]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:47:43 GMT, "Daniel L. Belton" <abuse@spam.gov>
Gave us:

You are right about there being an implied copyright, but wrong about it
not being enforcable until it's registered. it is enforcable from the
minute you write it. Now being able to prove that you are the one that
wrote it first gets to be a little harder if you don't register it.

Which may be just what he meant.

Virtually unenforceable.

Paper trails are important.

 

[Sunny]

Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 2:30:51 -0800, DaveC wrote:


I need to desolder (with no damage to the components) some SMD ROM chips. Is
there a good tutorial somewhere on the 'net about how to go about this?

BTW, I found a great tutorial on technique and equipment (lo-cost, some of it
make-yourself) on the 'net about soldering SMDs:

http://www.wku.edu/~barceed/SolderPage/index.htm


A radioamateur which desolders SMDs a lot told me the following technique:
Take a heat-resistant, insulated wire like that used to wind transformers.
Stick it behind one row of pins until it comes out on the other side, the
wire should lay just behind the pins. Fasten it some way at one side (e.g.
solder it), preferable somewhat in front of the line of the pins. At the
other side, start heating the pins with a soldering iron, while gently
pulling the free end away from the chip so that the wire pushes against the
back of the pins. When the solder melts, the strain on the wire causes it to
lift the pin and prevent resoldering. Move along the row of pins until all
are done. Repeat as required for other sides.

Mat Nieuwenhoven

I have used that technique, and it's very effective if the device is
slated for the dumpster after removal - although finding an anchor point
is sometimes challenging. This method should not be used if you intend
to re-use the device as it applies pressure at an angle to the pins and
will bend them.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:57:24 +0100, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se>
Gave us:

They cannot take a break. They are driven by a culture which produces
workaholics, restless people who are unable to relax.

Wrong, we are unable to relax for criminal mindsets.

Big difference.

Got clue?

 

[Active8]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:47:43 GMT, abuse@spam.gov said...

Active8 wrote:

snip
There are a lot of people that can steal an idea, slightly alter it, and
claim that they did all of the original work. These people are not worth
half of a good engineer that can create new ideas. Even an engineer that
uses example material - but makes it clear that the material came from
another source - is of more value than someone that just steals.

Frankly I can imagine that this student has a hard drive full of stolen
music and doesn't think anything of it.

You are talking about copyright infringement, not theft. One major
difference is that if you steal physical property, you deprive the
rightful owner of possesion. In copyright infringement, there is no such
deprivation. Also, there are some legally established justifications for
copying copyright-protected materials. That is to say, not every
unauthorized copy of copyrighted material is punishable under law, at
least in the US.


For one thing, there's an implied copyright on anything original
that you wright, but you can't enforce it until it's registered.
Then you get into other little details which I forget, but theres
at least one decent site out there that covers the major points.


You are right about there being an implied copyright, but wrong about it
not being enforcable until it's registered. it is enforcable from the
minute you write it. Now being able to prove that you are the one that
wrote it first gets to be a little harder if you don't register it.

Thanks for refreshing my DRAM, your right. Must have confused it

with having to register as a foreign corp in a state one wishes to
sue another company in or something.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:33:03 -0800,
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org said...

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:47:43 GMT, "Daniel L. Belton" <abuse@spam.gov
Gave us:


You are right about there being an implied copyright, but wrong about it
not being enforcable until it's registered. it is enforcable from the
minute you write it. Now being able to prove that you are the one that
wrote it first gets to be a little harder if you don't register it.

Which may be just what he meant.

Virtually unenforceable.

Paper trails are important.

No, but that's probably why/how I brain farted on the point

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:31:25 -0800,
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org said...

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:19:37 GMT, Active8
mTHISREMOVEcolasono@earthlink.net,invalid> Gave us:


Yup. It's called competition and free enterprise. Each design is
different enough to be considered unique and that's not patent or
copyright infrigement.

It also renders many of them NON patentable as they are not
different enough as to be a unique idea.

In fact, it means that nearly any version of that particular
product, even a directly copied one, is not any infringement.

There are many circuits in electronics which were designed by one,
yet reside in the public domain. Same thing for some mechanical
devices.

You want a patent? Do not attempt to patent the entire product.
Find some small feature that you have incorporated into it, and patent
only that. THEN a direct copy by an unsuspecting plagiarizer is
prosecutable as patent infringement.

I wouldn't do it just so I could catch the unsuspecting. That would

cost me more money to defend as opposed to discouraging
infringement by clearly stating somewhere obvious that certain
parts are patented. I've seen it in product lit. "Patented Howling
Hyena (TM) Polysyllabic Woofer Wafer System" or whatever. That was
a hypothetical example.

My favorite - I think it was patented separately. If not, it was
still funny. It had me ROFLMAO at work when the project mgr read
it. We hacked a RS freq counter for an indicator on a prototype
demo.

"Anti-oscillation detection routine." IOW, if the thing doesn't get
the same count so many times out of so many attempts, the count is
discarded as erroneous.

I've seen *multiple* patents on products, too. That'll keep someone
from just changing one subcircuit and patenting a whole new
product. Patent every little thing you can for one product.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[DarkMatter]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:26:51 GMT, Active8
<mTHISREMOVEcolasono@earthlink.net,invalid> Gave us:

Patent every little thing you can for one product.

The key being what "one can" patent.