Visual identification of Teensy?
- Thread starter gwideman
- Start date
- Status
If it looks exactly like one of these it is a Teensy
http://www.pjrc.com/teensy/index.html
as to which one, you should have no difficulty telling a Teensy 2 from the much larger Teensy++2. For Teensy 3.0 and 3.1, look at these better resolution pictures
http://www.pjrc.com/teensy/pinout.html
on the back, white silkscreened D+ and D- mean its a Teensy 3.1 (also D for DAC near pin 14; Teensy 3.0 has R for Reset)
If you bought it from a dodgy ebay seller and it doesn't work, it isn't a Teensy
http://www.pjrc.com/teensy/index.html
as to which one, you should have no difficulty telling a Teensy 2 from the much larger Teensy++2. For Teensy 3.0 and 3.1, look at these better resolution pictures
http://www.pjrc.com/teensy/pinout.html
on the back, white silkscreened D+ and D- mean its a Teensy 3.1 (also D for DAC near pin 14; Teensy 3.0 has R for Reset)
If you bought it from a dodgy ebay seller and it doesn't work, it isn't a Teensy
Yes, obviously one could identify a Teensy by comparing an unknown object to pictures of all possible Teensies, and being aware of all distinguishing nuances.
But that's not an alternative to being able to simply look at a collection of boards, and pull out a Teensy 2++ or 3.1 by referring just to the boards. If I tell 10 students individually to go to the cabinet and fetch a particular Teensy model, do each of them have to go look up the Teensy website, and study the pictures before they can carry out the task?
Going beyond that, very few commercial products lack Ids of some kind, if only so that manufacturers can stay sane while managing inventory and production. So I'm wondering why it's the case for Teensies, which otherwise are so professionally conceived and made.
As far as copies go, obviously a label doesn't prove that a product is not a copy. However, lack of label seems to allow clones to be made which, at least as determined visually, don't actually violate any laws, since they would not need a Teensy label to successfully masquerade as a Teensy, and hence don't actually make any illegal claim (other than perhaps in advertising or packaging). Contrast that to clone Arduino Unos which retain the silkscreen which says "Made in Italy" etc. and are obviously misrepresenting themselves.
Anyhow, I was thinking there might be a subtle Id somewhere I'd not noticed. Or there's some clever reason that there's no Id.
-- Graham
But that's not an alternative to being able to simply look at a collection of boards, and pull out a Teensy 2++ or 3.1 by referring just to the boards. If I tell 10 students individually to go to the cabinet and fetch a particular Teensy model, do each of them have to go look up the Teensy website, and study the pictures before they can carry out the task?
Going beyond that, very few commercial products lack Ids of some kind, if only so that manufacturers can stay sane while managing inventory and production. So I'm wondering why it's the case for Teensies, which otherwise are so professionally conceived and made.
As far as copies go, obviously a label doesn't prove that a product is not a copy. However, lack of label seems to allow clones to be made which, at least as determined visually, don't actually violate any laws, since they would not need a Teensy label to successfully masquerade as a Teensy, and hence don't actually make any illegal claim (other than perhaps in advertising or packaging). Contrast that to clone Arduino Unos which retain the silkscreen which says "Made in Italy" etc. and are obviously misrepresenting themselves.
Anyhow, I was thinking there might be a subtle Id somewhere I'd not noticed. Or there's some clever reason that there's no Id.
-- Graham
Last edited:
PaulStoffregen
Well-known member
If they're still in the original packaging, each will have a label on the outside of the bag that clearly identifies which product it is.
But if they've been taken out of the packaging and used and then tossed back in the drawer with a mix of other boards, yeah, there's not much in the way of identifying marks or branding on each the PCB.
Perhaps there should be some sort of mark? But if you look at both sides of a Teensy 3.1, the entire space is pretty tightly packed with components, pads to access signals, marking to help identify the signals, and test points. I'm really not sure how practical it would be to add any sort of marking that's easily noticeable among the densely packed features and communicate clearly to anyone who's not already familiar with the product.
Ah, it must be wonderful to have so much extra PCB space when designing a product. Even Arduino Nano has a lot more unused PCB area than the latest Teensy 3.1 boards.
The folks who clone Teensy board to underbid the already low price don't care about laws, not in their own country of origin nor in the USA or any other part of the world. Several users that have come here to the forum and have shown photos and the copycats were relatively easy to tell apart from normal Teensy boards.
The Teensy 3 and Teensy 3.1 do have an ID but it's not visual. Actually each board has its own ID that can be used as a MAC for Ethernet connectivity. This ID is written into a write-once register inn the Arm Cortex M4. That way clones are easily to tell apart. The closed source bootloader that is burned to the Min54 chip certainly contributes to this as well.
The Teensy 3 and Teensy 3.1 do have an ID but it's not visual. Actually each board has its own ID that can be used as a MAC for Ethernet connectivity. This ID is written into a write-once register inn the Arm Cortex M4. That way clones are easily to tell apart. The closed source bootloader that is burned to the Min54 chip certainly contributes to this as well.
Last edited:
PaulStoffregen
Well-known member
The Teensy Loader can tell which board you're using, based on the HID ID numbers. When it detects your board, info is logged to the "Verbose Info" window, which you can access from the Help menu.
Teensy Loader can also (usually) tell which board you've targeted, if the .elf file that corresponds to the .hex file is still in the same directory. The .hex file alone does not have enough info, so it looks for a matching .elf file to get this.
When the board type is known from your code, Teensy Loader will show an error if you're trying to program onto the wrong board. It looks like this:
Teensy Loader can also (usually) tell which board you've targeted, if the .elf file that corresponds to the .hex file is still in the same directory. The .hex file alone does not have enough info, so it looks for a matching .elf file to get this.
When the board type is known from your code, Teensy Loader will show an error if you're trying to program onto the wrong board. It looks like this:
PaulStoffregen
Well-known member
Possible, yes. Cost of adding a laser engraving step during manufacturing, unknown....
Get a small adhesive paper with T3.0/T3.1 written on it and place on processor, as soon you take it out the original packaging.
@Paul,
IMO, there would be sufficient space for a "T3.1" and "(C) PJRC" adjacent to RTC xtal and between the OTG capacitor, (maybe somewhat smaller font).
@Paul,
IMO, there would be sufficient space for a "T3.1" and "(C) PJRC" adjacent to RTC xtal and between the OTG capacitor, (maybe somewhat smaller font).
I use a paper adhesive label (cut to size) - since there's nothing in the silkscreen to ID board/rev/company.
If you look on the main (largest, 64 LQFP) chip of the Teensy 3.1 vs 3.0, there will be a marking that will tell you which it is.
Top line, Teensy 3: MK20DX128
Second line, Teensy 3: VLH5
Top line, Teensy 3.1: MK20DX256
Second line, Teensy 3.1: VLH7
Students shouldn't have a problem seeing it once they know where to look.
Top line, Teensy 3: MK20DX128
Second line, Teensy 3: VLH5
Top line, Teensy 3.1: MK20DX256
Second line, Teensy 3.1: VLH7
Students shouldn't have a problem seeing it once they know where to look.
Demolishun
Well-known member
If these are used in a class they should be labeled according to the needs of the teacher, by the teacher. I would in addition make sure they are stored in static bags (original or new ones). There is a LOT of room on the main processor for a nice little sticky label.
I think I may actually have an Arduino clone that says it is made in Italy, but is not.
I think I may actually have an Arduino clone that says it is made in Italy, but is not.
Sure. Does this bear on the issue of whether to have an Id on Teensy boards?
An interesting point. Not that I was pursuing any point relating to clones. But now I'm curious whether clones can simply write the same ID.
-- Graham
... Just sayin'. Of course, contrasting color is optional
And an actual logo would be better yet.Further: The gist of a number of responses on this thread is that there are a variety of ways to determine whether a board is a Teensy, and which one it is, by noting certain chips, or arrangement of parts, plugging it in and probing its code etc. Yes, obviously, you _can_ forensically determine what you are looking at. I think comments like this have missed the point.
Presumably we don't think that it's a good idea for a supply chain to be flooded with components that have no Ids by which they can be immediately recognized? How would that be manageable at any scale, whether in a school, manufacturing environment, prototyping lab, etc? Do we expect to deal with resistors and ICs that are unmarked except for the packaging they came in? Of course not, it would be a nightmare. (Exception: SMD passives, and there you have to be super careful to get them from tape to board without mixup.)
Hey, we loves us our Teensies, but now that there are a few different models, and pushing into new niches, I for one would really appreciate them being labeled, so that, in the wild, I know what I'm looking at without an identikit, and someone on the phone can look at one and tell me what it is, and so I can issue instructions and expect people to follow them, and get not-specially-trained personnel to check an order or an assembly, and etc etc etc.
-- Graham
Last edited:
PaulStoffregen
Well-known member
This is a good point, and I'm going to take it into account on future boards.
I can tell you there's a lot of "inertia" with PCB layout. I believe Robin's got PCBs purchased and scheduled through at least March. So if any change is made, it won't get into production until then. Even doing a tiny change to something being actively manufactured is quite a bit of work. I'm not going to go into the details, other than to say it's anything by trivial to make even the most trivial-seeming change to a board once it's being manufactured, with multiple vendors in play and a pretty good queue of material in process.
It's far easier (and lets me focus on stuff like improving the Arduino Serial Monitor, porting libraries, designing new products, answering more questions) to leave things running the way they are. I'm not saying "no", and in fact I might get that added onto the bottom silk layer at some point, but if it ever happens, the first boards to have it will be a very long way out in the future.
But for new boards that aren't yet into production, this should be pretty straightforward to add.
Edit: The silk screen, that is! I really don't think anyone wants to pay the extra cost for holograms and laser etching, awesome as those would be. But don't counterfeiters have the ability to copy that stuff anyway?
I can tell you there's a lot of "inertia" with PCB layout. I believe Robin's got PCBs purchased and scheduled through at least March. So if any change is made, it won't get into production until then. Even doing a tiny change to something being actively manufactured is quite a bit of work. I'm not going to go into the details, other than to say it's anything by trivial to make even the most trivial-seeming change to a board once it's being manufactured, with multiple vendors in play and a pretty good queue of material in process.
It's far easier (and lets me focus on stuff like improving the Arduino Serial Monitor, porting libraries, designing new products, answering more questions) to leave things running the way they are. I'm not saying "no", and in fact I might get that added onto the bottom silk layer at some point, but if it ever happens, the first boards to have it will be a very long way out in the future.
But for new boards that aren't yet into production, this should be pretty straightforward to add.
Edit: The silk screen, that is! I really don't think anyone wants to pay the extra cost for holograms and laser etching, awesome as those would be. But don't counterfeiters have the ability to copy that stuff anyway?
Last edited:
Demolishun
Well-known member
@Paul,
If you do decide to add silkscreen to the product I would use a product code with possibly a batch number/date. This could only help you in the future as you can identify when and where it was assembled. Words like Teensy 3.1 are nice, but only really for a quick ident. A product code tells more especially if you make tweaks down the road.
If you do decide to add silkscreen to the product I would use a product code with possibly a batch number/date. This could only help you in the future as you can identify when and where it was assembled. Words like Teensy 3.1 are nice, but only really for a quick ident. A product code tells more especially if you make tweaks down the road.
Yay!
Totally understood, from personal experience.
@Demolishun
Things like that are nice, but often a tradeoff versus feasibility and cost of intervening in the production process at that fineness of granularity. Products often have a means to add "release" or "run" level markings that don't involve remaking the main mold, silk-screen or whatever, depends what the manufacturer is set up to do.
For what it's worth, this article covers some options (manual labels, pick-n-place labels, laser marking, inkjet marking) and their pros and cons:
http://www.jetec.com/PCBarticle.html
and this PDF from Bosch discusses issues they consider for product Id-ing and marking.
http://purchasing.bosch.com/media/de/cp_documents/en/2269921330_Bosch_AE_Instruction_MAT_Label_V14.pdf
Anyhow -- looking forward to proudly and usefully labeled Teensies, sometime in the future
.
PaulStoffregen
Well-known member
Yeah, it would.... in an alternate reality where PJRC was a huge corporation with rigorous documentation policies and dedicated staff to "sign off" on strict adherence. And more space to print stuff.
As noted, T3.2 now features the actual product name on bottom silkscreen, yay! FWIW, most of the adhesive labels I've used eventually come off. For simple ID marks I just use a white "gel" pen to write on the black chip package. I have found only one pen suitable for this use, which is SAKURA GLAZE WHITE XPGB#850 which has a milky ink that dries opaque white. Useful for marking all kinds of dark surfaces where normal ink doesn't show up well. It can be scratched off, but for me it stays around longer than a label.
- Status