PSoC 5/5LP in harsh environment - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: nicalitz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 05:03:30 pm
content: I was wondering, does anyone have experience testing/using a PSoC 5/5LP in harsh environments that they would be willing to share? I'm curious how well these chips withstand/performs under vibration, shock, thermal stress and radiation.I'm working on a new design, and playing around with the idea of using one of these as an alternative to the SmartFusion2. Not completely a like for like comparison, but obvious similarities. Opinions?

author: danadak
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 09:07:08 pm
content: You might contact Cypress directly for the test data for the processand environmental for that family of parts.Even better if you prefaced it with the environment/stress you plan onusing the parts in, the accuracy in the analog you are expecting, long termdrift, etc.....You could initiate this at the Cypress forums, or contact Cypress regionalFAE as an interface to factory.Regards, Dana.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2018, 11:28:30 pm
content: Quote from: nicalitz on January 18, 2018, 05:03:30 pmI can only give you a comparative datapoint which is that I have used various Atmel chips and also PSOC5LP chips in a specific automotive environment where there was pretty extreme vibration and thermal cycling and I have experienced many fewer failures with the Cypress chips than with the Atmel chips. I've also experienced fewer failures during the assembly process from thermal stresses of the reflow/rework process and mechanical stress from epoxy shrinkage during potting. I've experienced better results from PSoC1, PSoC3, PSoC4 and PSoC5 chips across the board compared to Atmel Tiny, Mega and XMega chips.I don't have percentages or hard numbers for you - but just in general with Cypress chips it's a fraction of what it was with Atmel.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2018, 11:22:03 am
content: What packages were/are you using?Just wondering if your PSOCs are QFP and Atmels QFN/BGA or something?

author: nicalitz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2018, 10:30:30 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 20, 2018, 11:28:30 pmthat's very insightful, thank you for the feedback! it is always helpful to at least have some indication of whether or not unit might withstand these environments before committing to the costly and time consuming process of actually testing the thing.my main concern is the unit's (particularly the programmable logic arrays') ability to survive radiation. as with FPGAs, it is always a bit more difficult to test radiation tolerance when the system architecture can be configured in any number of ways

author: danadak
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2018, 12:19:37 pm
content: Google "cypress psoc radiation tolerance", a number of hits.Again I would advise you contact Cypress directly, if PSOC hasrad hard capability they will have test data. Specifically ifyou can get in touch with a production engineer or the HiReldepartment that should provide you with data to make a decision.Regards, Dana.

author: nicalitz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2018, 06:23:09 pm
content: Thanks Dana. I've tried the Google approach. Only worthwhile info is a radiation report on a PSoC4 by the US Air Force Research Lab. The chip performed poorly, but I do not believe a fair assessment was made.I eventually decided to contact Cypress directly, yet to hear back from them.One of the biggest problems with radiation testing is that it is very difficult to do comprehensively. It's also subject to 'randomness' and significant uncertainty. Since manufacturers can'tguaranteeradiation tolerance, they often prefer not to disclose such information at all.