The reliance on ESD protection diodes is way over-sold. From EDN Dec,2004;
"On a schematic, ESD-protection diodes resemble the diodes engineers
sometimes use to limit overshoot and undershoot on a high-speed bus, but
with one significant difference: the expected lifetime of the diode. An
overshoot-limiting diode is huge compared with its ESD-protection cousin,
and, because of its large size, the overshoot-limiting diode can absorb
pulse after pulse of high-powered current transients, lasting essentially
forever. ESD-protection diodes, on the other hand, are small, have limited
strength, and aim to handle only a few events in their lifetime. "
At Hughes we conducted (no pun intended) failure analysis on any electronic
parts we thought may have been compromised (not just CMOS). The parts were
de-capitated and scanned (as stated in the other thread). Equipment shot
into space cannot tolerate latent defects, as in those days we didn't have a
shuttle that could bring back the close orbit satellites. With the high
density sub-mil geometry's in IC's now ESD is a huge problem. A lot of dies
have "spark gaps" incorporated into the etch. Below is some typical and high
end readings for ESD voltages (source: Fairchild ESD Application Note:
AN-248).
Person on carpet: 12,000 V (highest reading 39,000 V)
Person on Vinyl : 4,000 V (highest reading 13,000 V)
Person on workbench: 500 V (highest reading 3,000 V)
16 Pin DIPs in plastic box 3,500 V (highest reading 12,000 V)
I think you get the idea. The diodes are normally tested at 400 Volts. After
multiple ESD hits the diodes fail open and go to their maker.
Best regards, Steven C.
Jim Beacon wrote:
From: "Dwight K. Elvey"
<dwight.elvey at amd.com>
>>From: "Tom Jennings" <tomj at wps.com>
>>
>>CMOS isn't *THAT* sensitive; easy, benign, reasonable precautions
>>are more than adequate. Ben, the days of early MOS/CMOS
>>hypersensitivity to static are long gone. Even 1970's 4000 series
>>had input-protection diodes.
>
> The 4051,4052 and 4053 were very static sensitive. But it
>is try that most were relatively insensitive. Still, if you
>are hitting a part with a spark large enough to make
>a sound, you are most likely doing some damage, even if
>it doesn't show right away.
>Dwight
>
I've changed an unholy amount of these in old analogue synthesizers.
Ensoniq Mirages seem to be the worst for it.
Gordon.