TropicalBob said:
But let me put it another way for you. Isn't it dangerous to drill into your whatchamacallit so close to the thingamajiggy that controls your dodad? You could kaput it with your boo-boo.
I meant no disrespect when I answered to you. Being a non-native speaker, I might have missed some supposed joke in there and got only the patronizing tone.... hmm... no biggie. I
do draw enough nicotine to keep my cool.
TropicalBob said:
"Micro" = small; "processor" = device that takes information, processes it creates action/s
I know what they are, I earn my life programing them, and designing systems that make use of them.
TropicalBob said:
"And controlling the function of the whole device is a silicon chip made by Motorola that ensures that it self cleans routinely every 1500 puffs, and controls the user feedback via the LED at the end of the cigarette."
This is what I'm talking about. This is marketing speak but people try to extract technical data out of it. Most of the times, it doesn't really work that well. "Silicon chip" could mean a lot of things... from passive IC (just a bunch of lowly electronics punched together in some plastic) to multi core processors. Then they go to mark it as "microprocessor" in the schematic and say that it cleans after 1500 puffs. That's grand. To count puffs, it needs memory (RAM, volatile). To remember it between power losses, it needs another memory (ie FLASH, non volatile). To control it, it needs a memory controller. To have all that in a single chip, it needs to be a microcontroller. Small difference, but it makes the schematic wrong and suggests other things could be wrong as well. Then it sais "sensor" in the schematic... when it's actually just a switch, as you pointed out. Then it says "atomizing controller". That is even funnier. It's just a heater, surrounded by a miniature metallic owen, padded with steel wool. It vaporizes. The atomization part is bull as that generally involves flames or plasma and is exactly what this (e-smoking) is supposed not to be. The "controller" part is also bull... seeing how it controls nothing. We do (mostly), by drawing. Excuse the detail overload (some might appreciate it), my point is... they should either provide no detail or correct detail. Otherwise, its marketing speak.
@Meltrex: Will post pictures.
RatInDaHat said:
I understand what you are saying, but in laymen's terms a microprocessor and microcontroller are the same thing.
Ofcourse. But then the laymen don't usually mock you when you call things they're name. Usually...
RatInDaHat said:
There has to at least be a "controller" because i guarantee this isn't all controlled with analog electronics, nor just a couple transistors.
Why? What complex (needing logical computation) function is there? Don't get me wrong, I am NOT debating for the love of debating. I just want to understand these devices better. DIY improvements (boo-boo work) are more successful (less kaput) when a deeper knowledge of the thingamajiggy at hand is involved. That's all... really.
leaford said:
I'm glad I caused it to be produced, if it made things clearer for you.
Oh and it does have some IC in there (dug deeper). Marks are missing on it so I don't know what it is. I could take educated guesses at it but I'll pass.
This all got way OT. The thing is, my boo-boo did a good job. The thingamajiggy still works. The dodad, as a whole, works better now.
