• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Dallas DS1287 battery hack - necessary to disconnect internal battery?

thisisamigaspeaking

Experienced Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2024
Messages
79
I'm looking at doing a battery hack on my DS1287 because a DS12887 didn't seem to work in a PS/2 55SX. My question is if I am going to be "charging" the original internal battery with the new external and if that is a problem?
 
I have not done one, but I have one and had it mind. I would think that you would want to disconnect the original battery. Have you seen these instructions.

Also, there seems to be some ready-made alternatives e.g., here, if you don't care to take a Dremel to your chip.
 
I have not done one, but I have one and had it mind. I would think that you would want to disconnect the original battery. Have you seen these instructions.

Also, there seems to be some ready-made alternatives e.g., here, if you don't care to take a Dremel to your chip.
Thanks. I've reviewed those instructions.

My concern with alternatives is that they may not work in a PS/2, like the 12887 does not seem to work (either that or its battery is dead already), even though it is supposed to be a direct substitute. I have seen others mention that substitutes do not work in PS/2s.
 
It's probably not a good idea to leave the internal battery connected--you don't know the condition of it. If it failed because an internal short developed, it would be a mistake to leave it in. Easy enough to disconnect, however.
 
Maybe someone else will chime in with some direct experience with the suitability of alternatives for a PS/2 55SX. If you use yours as per the instructions, yes, you will need to disconnect the on board battery. I see that there are existing DS12887s pulls for sale (and, I suppose, likely with no juice). I guess, if you have problems with the hack, you could buy a couple of backups and try again. Not sure what other alternatives are left unless you know someone who will do it for you.

Edited to correctly identify the DS in the link, but also to point out that the alternative that I linked to, is being sold by the designer who built it for use with his own 55 SX "I created this to replace a dead Dallas DS1287 real time clock in my IBM PS/2 Model 55 SX, though there are a number of systems that can use these. There are three versions available:" I think that is a good sign, but not a guarantee.
 
Last edited:
If you can find some surplus DS1285s, you can roll your own.
I don't see any listed on the bay, but at least one 1287. This brings up the limitation of trying to keep systems absolutely genuine - in this case, it seems impossible.

This is a very interesting thread on the subject from here in 2008. I guess many folks have already been through this, but sometimes I'm glad that I never had a genuine ibm.
 
It is ok to parallel the new battery with the discharged one in most cases (I have done it with the DS1225). The only problem is the more aged and degraded the internal battery is, the more current it draws, You can test the current. Generally if the internal battery only draws a few micro-amps it is fine and it drops with time, if the current is higher then it simply discharges the added support battery more quickly. This is not a problem if the support battery is large in size & capacity, but if the support battery is a button cell , it could go flat in weeks to months if the current is too high.
 
My concern with alternatives is that they may not work in a PS/2, like the 12887 does not seem to work (either that or its battery is dead already), even though it is supposed to be a direct substitute. I have seen others mention that substitutes do not work in PS/2s.
I list some known compatibility/incompatibility at [here], a list that I update when I can. I will add your DS12887 experience to the list.
 
...I'm also not sure about your Dallas part, one interesting thing is with the DS1225, there are two versions internally of it. This came about because they moved from a DIL part in the early versions to an SOIC memory part later. In one case the battery is located on the bottom with its negative terminal facing outwards,in that case its positive terminal is better accessed from the battery management IC's connections. In the other case, when its on the top, the battery's positive terminal is just below the plastic surface and easy to get at. For the DS1225 at least there is some info here pages 6 to 10: But, like I say I'm not sure if there are two internal versions of your Dallas part, as I have never x-ray'd those or cut into them.


www.worldphaco.com/uploads/TEKTRONIX_2465b_OSCILLOSCOPE_CALIBRATION___REPOWERING_THE_DS1225.pdf
 
Is inserting the Dallas chip in the wrong orientation enough to fry a motherboard? I think I did have it the wrong way when I first powered on. Now it seems dead. :confused:
 
Is inserting the Dallas chip in the wrong orientation enough to fry a motherboard? I think I did have it the wrong way when I first powered on. Now it seems dead. :confused:
Applying reverse polarity to a chip of any kind usually fries the chip and it draws excessive current and heats up.

The other connections on the chip could then be pulled high or low. For those connections that were outputs from the chip on the socket, these go to input circuits elsewhere, won't likely cause any harm, though computer wouldn't likely run in that condition.

For the socket pins that were inputs on the reversed chip, these come from outputs of other chips on the motherboard, and they could be forced low or forced high, though in most cases, that would be tolerated by those other chips for a while. Though pulling a line(output pin) hard to ground with a short is less risky than pulling it high to +5v, because generally TTL output stages in the chips are good at sinking current due to the transistor in the lower leg of the totem pole, and poor at sourcing current from their output pins. Cmos parts do it equally well in both directions because their output stage is symmetrical. Also, may chips are designed to tolerate shorted outputs, at least for some seconds/minutes.

A risky scenario would be say if one of the pins on the Dallas IC socket, was say connected to an open collector gate output elsewhere, and the reversed chip pulled that line hard high, then it could damage the transistor junction in the output stage of the open collector gate, or possibly another standard gate elsewhere.

Or another scenario, the reversed chip might have knocked out the +5V supply rail in that region so check that.

The short answer is it is possible it could have damaged another part on the mobo, but not too likely and more likely damaged the Dallas part.
 
Last edited:
Applying reverse polarity to a chip of any kind usually fries the chip and it draws excessive current and heats up.

The other connections on the chip could then be pulled high or low. For those connections that were outputs from the chip on the socket, these go to input circuits elsewhere, won't likely cause any harm, though computer wouldn't likely run in that condition.

For the socket pins that were inputs on the reversed chip, these come from outputs of other chips on the motherboard, and they could be forced low or forced high, though in most cases, that would be tolerated by those other chips for a while. Though pulling a line(output pin) hard to ground with a short is less risky than pulling it high to +5v, because generally TTL output stages in the chips are good at sinking current due to the transistor in the lower leg of the totem pole, and poor at sourcing current from their output pins. Cmos parts do it equally well in both directions because their output stage is symmetrical. Also, may chips are designed to tolerate shorted outputs, at least for some seconds/minutes.

A risky scenario would be say if one of the pins on the Dallas IC socket, was say connected to an open collector gate output elsewhere, and the reversed chip pulled that line hard high, then it could damage the transistor junction in the output stage of the open collector gate, or possibly another standard gate elsewhere.

Or another scenario, the reversed chip might have knocked out the +5V supply rail in that region so check that.

The short answer is it is possible it could have damaged another part on the mobo, but not too likely and more likely damaged the Dallas part.
Thanks. Neither of the 12887 I have work either, properly inserted in the motherboard. I'm about ready to put it on a shelf and end my deep dive into PS/2. I have nostalgia for them but it's been nothing but trouble so far.
 
Thanks. Neither of the 12887 I have work either, properly inserted in the motherboard. I'm about ready to put it on a shelf and end my deep dive into PS/2. I have nostalgia for them but it's been nothing but trouble so far.
The old trouble T and nostalgia N ratio, where k = N/T

Generally if k is <1 (when you give up as there is not enough positive feedback for you to sustain oscillating back and forth to repair it) it is because there is not enough nostalgia and too much trouble, or both. With enough nostalgia though it can outweigh nearly any amount of trouble and keep k>1.
 
I'll chime in on the battery question...
Generally speaking, you do not want to recharge primary lithium cells. They are a rather fragile chemistry, and even pulling too much current from them can cause thermal runaway. Related, per FAA rules, all Li chemistry batteries of a certain size and greater are banned from being installed on aircraft, and you have to jump through some pretty significant hurdles to get them certified to be on an aircraft.

That said, the cells in the Dallas chips are so small that the risk isn't that great. I have recharged primary lithium cells before without issue. Disconnecting is obviously the best solution, but anecdotal evidence from Hugo and others indicates the risk is pretty small.
 
Or another scenario, the reversed chip might have knocked out the +5V supply rail in that region so check that.
The parts around it are heating up. I've checked all the +5V rails on the PSU, they are good. Probing around the planar is more than I want to get into on this, if it's dead it's e-waste to me.
 
Last edited:
In some sets (MCU based VDU's that is) like the Conrac one I recently worked on, the manufacturers actually put a small trickle charge current into the lithium cell, while the set was powered. No harm comes from this, presumably to extend its life. The cell is also encapsulated in resin in the Dallas parts.
 
My concern was should the embedded cell develop significant leakage. The result would be faster draining of the external cell. Not necessarily dangerous, but inconvenient. Better to fish around and disconnect the internal one.
 
My concern was should the embedded cell develop significant leakage. The result would be faster draining of the external cell. Not necessarily dangerous, but inconvenient. Better to fish around and disconnect the internal one.
This is exactly what happens with the Dallas DS1225 if a battery is paralleled with an exhausted one, to varying degrees, the exhausted internal cells draws current from the added support battery. It is all a matter of proportions, but even 10uA is too much if you put something away for a year and expect it to have not lost its memory.

It is better to disconnect the internal battery it requires grinding away enough of the resin to do it, or completely extract and discard the internal battery because it serves no purpose and is more of a liability.
 
Back
Top