design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that
is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an
assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts. Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling
stuff, not publishing papers.
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better
microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out
on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that
is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts. Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound
as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
You've often argued in favor of brainstorming, where you get a few smart >people in front of a white board and try out ideas to find the best one
and flesh it out. We've done that together, very fruitfully.
It's possible to do more or less the same thing by oneself, but it
requires the ability to tolerate uncertainty for extended periods.
(That's a skill well worth developing, which most people are really,
really bad at, IME.)
I sometimes need to do a family of designs, rather than just one.
Recently I've been working on some very fast, very cheap SPAD preamps, >intended to go in the guts of positron-emission scanners.
Designs with lots of real-world constraints are often the most fun, and
this one's specs include: 300-ps edges with 100-ps timing repeatability
from unit to unit; no magnetics allowed; and a BOM cost of $1 or less.
(You need a whole lot of channels, and PET and MRI machines are often >combined.)
I do a fair amount of analysis of circuits of that sort, to figure out
what actually limits their performance. It isn't super detailed--in
this case, just enough to figure out whether it'll be the base-emitter
time constant, the Miller effect, or the SPAD's series resistance that
will be the limiting factor.
Miller, I can deal with using circuit hacks. The BE time constant is
Rbb' * Cbe, which gets slightly worse at high current, but is mainly a >device parameter--to get a big improvement you have to change
transistors. The SPAD can be negotiable depending on whose process
you're making them on--when each machine needs thousands of them,
vendors tend to listen.
Eventually, of course, you have to pick one and go with it, but picking
a topology usually takes me an iteration or two.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs ><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better
microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out
on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that
is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an
assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or
sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and
breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts.
Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling
stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound
as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >>somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
If an idea is new, where else would come from?
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:05:07 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs >><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better >>>microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out >>>on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that
is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an
assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or
sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and
breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts.
Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling
stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound
as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >>>somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
If an idea is new, where else would come from?
It's the same idea that your FNG suggested in the design review
two weeks ago; the one that you shot down in flames.
RL
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs ><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better
microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out
on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that
is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an
assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or
sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and
breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts.
Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling
stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound
as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >>somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
If an idea is new, where else would come from?
You've often argued in favor of brainstorming, where you get a few smart >>people in front of a white board and try out ideas to find the best one
and flesh it out. We've done that together, very fruitfully.
It's possible to do more or less the same thing by oneself, but it
requires the ability to tolerate uncertainty for extended periods.
(That's a skill well worth developing, which most people are really,
really bad at, IME.)
The uncertainty period is probably necessary, to let ones neurons
prowl the noisy solution space. The period is usually a day or two,
but can be years.
Some engineers are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and want to lock
down a design as soon as possible, preferably something sanctioned by
some authority. I like to stay confused for a while.
I sometimes need to do a family of designs, rather than just one.
Recently I've been working on some very fast, very cheap SPAD preamps, >>intended to go in the guts of positron-emission scanners.
Designs with lots of real-world constraints are often the most fun, and >>this one's specs include: 300-ps edges with 100-ps timing repeatability >>from unit to unit; no magnetics allowed; and a BOM cost of $1 or less.
(You need a whole lot of channels, and PET and MRI machines are often >>combined.)
I do a fair amount of analysis of circuits of that sort, to figure out
what actually limits their performance. It isn't super detailed--in
this case, just enough to figure out whether it'll be the base-emitter
time constant, the Miller effect, or the SPAD's series resistance that
will be the limiting factor.
Certainly quantitative reality should filter the solution space. But
even that can be mostly intuitive. I was talking about that with C on
Friday, about how some people have good quantitative intuition and
some don't. She can look at soup in a round pot and know if it will
fit into a square plastic container, to about 10%. I can do that.
Neither of our spouses can.
Miller, I can deal with using circuit hacks. The BE time constant is
Rbb' * Cbe, which gets slightly worse at high current, but is mainly a >>device parameter--to get a big improvement you have to change
transistors. The SPAD can be negotiable depending on whose process
you're making them on--when each machine needs thousands of them,
vendors tend to listen.
Eventually, of course, you have to pick one and go with it, but picking
a topology usually takes me an iteration or two.
Sometimes a circuit takes me dozens, lots of sheets in the trash can.
I think it's important to give as many ideas as possible a chance.
See Barrie Gilbert's essay "Where do little circuits come from?"
"Prod and poke" and "doodling" are suggested.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:05:07 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs >><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better >>>microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out >>>on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that
is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an
assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or
sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and
breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts.
Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling
stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound
as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >>>somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
If an idea is new, where else would come from?
You've often argued in favor of brainstorming, where you get a few smart >>>people in front of a white board and try out ideas to find the best one >>>and flesh it out. We've done that together, very fruitfully.
It's possible to do more or less the same thing by oneself, but it >>>requires the ability to tolerate uncertainty for extended periods. >>>(That's a skill well worth developing, which most people are really, >>>really bad at, IME.)
The uncertainty period is probably necessary, to let ones neurons
prowl the noisy solution space. The period is usually a day or two,
but can be years.
Some engineers are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and want to lock
down a design as soon as possible, preferably something sanctioned by
some authority. I like to stay confused for a while.
I sometimes need to do a family of designs, rather than just one. >>>Recently I've been working on some very fast, very cheap SPAD preamps, >>>intended to go in the guts of positron-emission scanners.
Designs with lots of real-world constraints are often the most fun, and >>>this one's specs include: 300-ps edges with 100-ps timing repeatability >>>from unit to unit; no magnetics allowed; and a BOM cost of $1 or less. >>>(You need a whole lot of channels, and PET and MRI machines are often >>>combined.)
I do a fair amount of analysis of circuits of that sort, to figure out >>>what actually limits their performance. It isn't super detailed--in
this case, just enough to figure out whether it'll be the base-emitter >>>time constant, the Miller effect, or the SPAD's series resistance that >>>will be the limiting factor.
Certainly quantitative reality should filter the solution space. But
even that can be mostly intuitive. I was talking about that with C on >>Friday, about how some people have good quantitative intuition and
some don't. She can look at soup in a round pot and know if it will
fit into a square plastic container, to about 10%. I can do that.
Neither of our spouses can.
Miller, I can deal with using circuit hacks. The BE time constant is >>>Rbb' * Cbe, which gets slightly worse at high current, but is mainly a >>>device parameter--to get a big improvement you have to change >>>transistors. The SPAD can be negotiable depending on whose process >>>you're making them on--when each machine needs thousands of them,
vendors tend to listen.
Eventually, of course, you have to pick one and go with it, but picking
a topology usually takes me an iteration or two.
Sometimes a circuit takes me dozens, lots of sheets in the trash can.
I think it's important to give as many ideas as possible a chance.
See Barrie Gilbert's essay "Where do little circuits come from?"
"Prod and poke" and "doodling" are suggested.
I agree with both of you. What Phil is doing is figuring out where to
focus the brainstorming and fiddling, and the resulting wild
alternatives can easily be assessed. It's at the very least an
orthogonal method.
My personal experience is that iterations and inspirations require
studying extensively followed by sleeping on it, so the metric isn't a
few days, it's a few nights.
The bit about the necessity of nights was pointed out by J. Hadamard
in his famous book on this issue. The book has become hard to find
and expensive, but has now been reissued:
.<https://www.amazon.com/Mathematicians-Mind-Jacques-Hadamard/dp/0691029318/ref=sr_1_1>
Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 22:08:08 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:05:07 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better >>>>microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out >>>>on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that >>>> > is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an
assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or
sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design >>>> > pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and
breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts. >>>> > Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling >>>> > stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound >>>>as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >>>>somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
If an idea is new, where else would come from?
You've often argued in favor of brainstorming, where you get a few smart >>>>people in front of a white board and try out ideas to find the best one >>>>and flesh it out. We've done that together, very fruitfully.
It's possible to do more or less the same thing by oneself, but it >>>>requires the ability to tolerate uncertainty for extended periods. >>>>(That's a skill well worth developing, which most people are really, >>>>really bad at, IME.)
The uncertainty period is probably necessary, to let ones neurons
prowl the noisy solution space. The period is usually a day or two,
but can be years.
Some engineers are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and want to lock
down a design as soon as possible, preferably something sanctioned by >>>some authority. I like to stay confused for a while.
I sometimes need to do a family of designs, rather than just one. >>>>Recently I've been working on some very fast, very cheap SPAD preamps, >>>>intended to go in the guts of positron-emission scanners.
Designs with lots of real-world constraints are often the most fun, and >>>>this one's specs include: 300-ps edges with 100-ps timing repeatability >>>>from unit to unit; no magnetics allowed; and a BOM cost of $1 or less. >>>>(You need a whole lot of channels, and PET and MRI machines are often >>>>combined.)
I do a fair amount of analysis of circuits of that sort, to figure out >>>>what actually limits their performance. It isn't super detailed--in >>>>this case, just enough to figure out whether it'll be the base-emitter >>>>time constant, the Miller effect, or the SPAD's series resistance that >>>>will be the limiting factor.
Certainly quantitative reality should filter the solution space. But
even that can be mostly intuitive. I was talking about that with C on >>>Friday, about how some people have good quantitative intuition and
some don't. She can look at soup in a round pot and know if it will
fit into a square plastic container, to about 10%. I can do that.
Neither of our spouses can.
Miller, I can deal with using circuit hacks. The BE time constant is >>>>Rbb' * Cbe, which gets slightly worse at high current, but is mainly a >>>>device parameter--to get a big improvement you have to change >>>>transistors. The SPAD can be negotiable depending on whose process >>>>you're making them on--when each machine needs thousands of them, >>>>vendors tend to listen.
Eventually, of course, you have to pick one and go with it, but picking >>>>a topology usually takes me an iteration or two.
Sometimes a circuit takes me dozens, lots of sheets in the trash can.
I think it's important to give as many ideas as possible a chance.
See Barrie Gilbert's essay "Where do little circuits come from?"
"Prod and poke" and "doodling" are suggested.
I agree with both of you. What Phil is doing is figuring out where to >>focus the brainstorming and fiddling, and the resulting wild
alternatives can easily be assessed. It's at the very least an
orthogonal method.
My personal experience is that iterations and inspirations require
studying extensively followed by sleeping on it, so the metric isn't a
few days, it's a few nights.
Actually, it is a few showers.
The bit about the necessity of nights was pointed out by J. Hadamard
in his famous book on this issue. The book has become hard to find
and expensive, but has now been reissued:
.<https://www.amazon.com/Mathematicians-Mind-Jacques-Hadamard/dp/0691029318/ref=sr_1_1>
Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:43:18 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 22:08:08 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:05:07 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>>><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better >>>>>microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out >>>>>on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that >>>>> > is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an >>>>> > assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or >>>>> > sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design >>>>> > pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes >>>>> > fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and
breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up >>>>> > chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts. >>>>> > Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling >>>>> > stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound >>>>>as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >>>>>somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
If an idea is new, where else would come from?
You've often argued in favor of brainstorming, where you get a few smart >>>>>people in front of a white board and try out ideas to find the best one >>>>>and flesh it out. We've done that together, very fruitfully.
It's possible to do more or less the same thing by oneself, but it >>>>>requires the ability to tolerate uncertainty for extended periods. >>>>>(That's a skill well worth developing, which most people are really, >>>>>really bad at, IME.)
The uncertainty period is probably necessary, to let ones neurons
prowl the noisy solution space. The period is usually a day or two,
but can be years.
Some engineers are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and want to lock >>>>down a design as soon as possible, preferably something sanctioned by >>>>some authority. I like to stay confused for a while.
I sometimes need to do a family of designs, rather than just one. >>>>>Recently I've been working on some very fast, very cheap SPAD preamps, >>>>>intended to go in the guts of positron-emission scanners.
Designs with lots of real-world constraints are often the most fun, and >>>>>this one's specs include: 300-ps edges with 100-ps timing repeatability >>>>>from unit to unit; no magnetics allowed; and a BOM cost of $1 or less. >>>>>(You need a whole lot of channels, and PET and MRI machines are often >>>>>combined.)
I do a fair amount of analysis of circuits of that sort, to figure out >>>>>what actually limits their performance. It isn't super detailed--in >>>>>this case, just enough to figure out whether it'll be the base-emitter >>>>>time constant, the Miller effect, or the SPAD's series resistance that >>>>>will be the limiting factor.
Certainly quantitative reality should filter the solution space. But >>>>even that can be mostly intuitive. I was talking about that with C on >>>>Friday, about how some people have good quantitative intuition and
some don't. She can look at soup in a round pot and know if it will
fit into a square plastic container, to about 10%. I can do that. >>>>Neither of our spouses can.
Miller, I can deal with using circuit hacks. The BE time constant is >>>>>Rbb' * Cbe, which gets slightly worse at high current, but is mainly a >>>>>device parameter--to get a big improvement you have to change >>>>>transistors. The SPAD can be negotiable depending on whose process >>>>>you're making them on--when each machine needs thousands of them, >>>>>vendors tend to listen.
Eventually, of course, you have to pick one and go with it, but picking >>>>>a topology usually takes me an iteration or two.
Sometimes a circuit takes me dozens, lots of sheets in the trash can.
I think it's important to give as many ideas as possible a chance.
See Barrie Gilbert's essay "Where do little circuits come from?"
"Prod and poke" and "doodling" are suggested.
I agree with both of you. What Phil is doing is figuring out where to >>>focus the brainstorming and fiddling, and the resulting wild
alternatives can easily be assessed. It's at the very least an
orthogonal method.
My personal experience is that iterations and inspirations require >>>studying extensively followed by sleeping on it, so the metric isn't a >>>few days, it's a few nights.
Actually, it is a few showers.
So, you're all wet?
Actually, I also get ideas in the shower, probably because I stopped
focusing so hard.
I used to keep a waterproof dictation recorder handy, and on my
bedside table, so I wouldn't lose the ideas, but don't need the
recorder any more.
But the key is to stop trying for a while and think irrelevant things.
Joe Gwinn
The bit about the necessity of nights was pointed out by J. Hadamard
in his famous book on this issue. The book has become hard to find
and expensive, but has now been reissued:
.<https://www.amazon.com/Mathematicians-Mind-Jacques-Hadamard/dp/0691029318/ref=sr_1_1>
Joe Gwinn
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 7:06:28?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "betterIf an idea is new, where else would come from?
microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out
on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that
is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an
assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or
sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and
breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts.
Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling
stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound
as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of
somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
Within 5 years, all this manual fiddling, and so-called brainstorming, will be reduced to an AI-app resident on a $ phone. It may not be optimum, but it will work.
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better
microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out
on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that
is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes
fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up
chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts. Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some
extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound
as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
You've often argued in favor of brainstorming, where you get a few smart people in front of a white board and try out ideas to find the best one
and flesh it out. We've done that together, very fruitfully.
It's possible to do more or less the same thing by oneself, but it
requires the ability to tolerate uncertainty for extended periods.
(That's a skill well worth developing, which most people are really,
really bad at, IME.)
On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 6:29:33?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote: >> On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 7:43:34?AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 11:47:54 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:They are enough to specify a patentable idea. Reducing it to practice takes a lot more work, and documenting a complete system takes a lot of words (and pictures). Oddly enough, software can do a lot of the documentation.
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 7:06:28?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:
I don't think so. Just a few words are not enough to specify and generate a specific, reliable design.
There's not much I in AI. It's mostly a silly fad.For particular problems it can already find solutions that humans can't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding
AlphaFold is well ahead of any expert, and some theorem-proving programs operate without making mistakes to a degree that allows them to outperform human mathematicians on specific complex problems. It really isn't any kid of silly fad.
But brainstorming isn't so-called. Done right, it really works.Mainly by discouraging status-seeking creeps from insisting on concentrating on their own ideas.
To be replaced by group concentration on no ideas at all.
https://resources.pcb.cadence.com/blog/2022-the-role-of-machine-learning-in-analog-circuit-design
https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/chip-design/ai-analog-design-migration-samsung-safe-forum-2023.html
https://www.planetanalog.com/what-can-ai-do-for-analog-design/
https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded/article/21272567/electronic-design-ai-lends-a-helping-hand-with-analog-and-custom-ic-design
https://semiengineering.com/ai-for-circuit-design-quality-productivity-and-advanced-node-mapping/
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/31523/
The list is endless. Humans are not as unique and special as they make themselves out to be. They'll all be replaced by AI before long.
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:28:36?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:00:15 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 6:29:33?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:The people have to be right for the process to be productive of ideas.
On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 7:43:34?AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 11:47:54 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:They are enough to specify a patentable idea. Reducing it to practice takes a lot more work, and documenting a complete system takes a lot of words (and pictures). Oddly enough, software can do a lot of the documentation.
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 7:06:28?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:
I don't think so. Just a few words are not enough to specify and generate a specific, reliable design.
There's not much I in AI. It's mostly a silly fad.For particular problems it can already find solutions that humans can't >> >>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding
AlphaFold is well ahead of any expert, and some theorem-proving programs operate without making mistakes to a degree that allows them to outperform human mathematicians on specific complex problems. It really isn't any kid of silly fad.
But brainstorming isn't so-called. Done right, it really works.Mainly by discouraging status-seeking creeps from insisting on concentrating on their own ideas.
To be replaced by group concentration on no ideas at all.
Some people will poison a brainstorming session, and too much general
sociability in the room will reinforce conventional thinking.
https://resources.pcb.cadence.com/blog/2022-the-role-of-machine-learning-in-analog-circuit-design
That's absurd. Sounds like they are trying to sell cad options to
beginners.
https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/chip-design/ai-analog-design-migration-samsung-safe-forum-2023.html
Certainly a lot of computing helps design digital ICs, but I wouldn't
call that intelligence. Smart people wrote very specialized software.
I sometimes write software to solve circuit problems, but the software
just does what I told it to do.
https://www.planetanalog.com/what-can-ai-do-for-analog-design/
I'd love to have a good component selection tool. The intelligence
would be in inferring things from bad data sheets that have no
standards. It would of course have to read and understand application
schematics and mechanical drawings and find gotchas buried in
footnotes and graphs.
Find me a right-angle Gbit PoE compatible RJ45 jack that has multiple
drop-in sources, two LEDs on the high side, lots of stock from
non-Chinese sources, at a good price. They have to mount on my PCB and
ground to a cutout in my panel. That's an easy one.
Lots of sources for that, but if you want a good price, it will be made in Asia. The shielded ones will ground to the panel. High demand parts like that will have a long lead time:
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/w%C3%BCrth-elektronik/615008137421/2060608
Has AI ever invented anything?
https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded/article/21272567/electronic-design-ai-lends-a-helping-hand-with-analog-and-custom-ic-design
https://semiengineering.com/ai-for-circuit-design-quality-productivity-and-advanced-node-mapping/
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/31523/
The list is endless. Humans are not as unique and special as they make themselves out to be. They'll all be replaced by AI before long.
It's doing things like running through impossibly large numbers of permutations to find something useful, as with drug discovery. It's more the case creative people are using AI to enable inventive ideas.
I check up on Flux.ai now and then. I wonder when they will run out of
money.
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:15:36?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
I would like a Spice that was, say, 500x as fast as mine is now,
nvidia or something. And I'd love some way to specify results and have
a program juggle values and even library parts for a best solution.
Past attempts at such optimizations have tended to diverge. Even most
interns are smarter than that.
That's why we have math, that tells us that linear equations (like SPICE solves)
have multiple ways to generate large numbers. It's catastrophe theory,
to be precise.
For a stable sine wave oscillator, you can't use ideal C, R, L, and amplifier >components; there won't ever be any solutions that don't diverge, because
the linear-differential-equation solutions all have a matrix raised to
a power (and the power goes up with time). It'll always exponentially
decay or explode, because NO available component tolerances
are negligible effects.
The bugaboo of ALL multivariate optimizers is the fact that any solution >that's not unique is associated with regions in the parameter space
that have no optimum-direction sensitivity. Also, the parameter space
is huge. A dozen filter components means a ten-percent grid on
available values ranging over three decades has 72^12 = 1.9 *10^22
points to test, when the flat regions don't allow for gradient directed progress.
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 6:08:46?PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:29:57 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:15:36?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
I would like a Spice that was, say, 500x as fast as mine is now,
nvidia or something. And I'd love some way to specify results and have
a program juggle values and even library parts for a best solution.
Past attempts at such optimizations have tended to diverge. Even most
interns are smarter than that.
That's why we have math, that tells us that linear equations (like SPICE solves)
have multiple ways to generate large numbers. It's catastrophe theory,
to be precise.
For a stable sine wave oscillator, you can't use ideal C, R, L, and amplifier
components; there won't ever be any solutions that don't diverge, because >> >the linear-differential-equation solutions all have a matrix raised to
a power (and the power goes up with time). It'll always exponentially
decay or explode, because NO available component tolerances
are negligible effects.
One of my specialities is designing instant-start super low jitter LC
oscillators. The Spice sims are dead on, except for tempco
compensation, which has to be done experimentally. I'd hate to design
such oscillators using differential equations.
Oh, if you run SPICE, you ARE using differential equations... after >Laplace-transforming them to linear equations using lots of "j ?" bits.
The thing that cannot be done, is to do sines with all linear
components; there's no linear equation for a saturating logic
comparator, so it makes a fine oscillator (NE555)
but not a pure sine wave.
Bill Hewlett's classic sine wave oscillator design got around the
problem with a thermal-varying resistor (square law device,
NOT linear).
Doing an oscillator with LC instead of RC gets better jitter, I'm told.
Startup, though, is less linear if the inductor has any
kind of nonlinear character; you want to worry about things
(self-resonant frequencies, or remanent field) when component
selection time comes around.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:04:20 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 6:08:46?PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:29:57 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:15:36?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote: >>>>
I would like a Spice that was, say, 500x as fast as mine is now,
nvidia or something. And I'd love some way to specify results and have >>>>> a program juggle values and even library parts for a best solution.
Past attempts at such optimizations have tended to diverge. Even most >>>>> interns are smarter than that.
That's why we have math, that tells us that linear equations (like SPICE solves)
have multiple ways to generate large numbers. It's catastrophe theory, >>>> to be precise.
For a stable sine wave oscillator, you can't use ideal C, R, L, and amplifier
components; there won't ever be any solutions that don't diverge, because >>>> the linear-differential-equation solutions all have a matrix raised to >>>> a power (and the power goes up with time). It'll always exponentially
decay or explode, because NO available component tolerances
are negligible effects.
One of my specialities is designing instant-start super low jitter LC
oscillators. The Spice sims are dead on, except for tempco
compensation, which has to be done experimentally. I'd hate to design
such oscillators using differential equations.
Oh, if you run SPICE, you ARE using differential equations... after
Laplace-transforming them to linear equations using lots of "j ?" bits.
The thing that cannot be done, is to do sines with all linear
components; there's no linear equation for a saturating logic
comparator, so it makes a fine oscillator (NE555)
but not a pure sine wave.
If Spice runs differential equations and LaPlace transforms inside, at
least I don't need to know about it. The *concept* of the diff
equation for an LC resonator, energy sloshing around and initial
conditions, is of course basic.
Bill Hewlett's classic sine wave oscillator design got around the
problem with a thermal-varying resistor (square law device,
NOT linear).
Yes, incandescent bulb filament. That's OK for a steady-state audio oscillator. I recall that there's a bit of THD at low frequencies.
Doing an oscillator with LC instead of RC gets better jitter, I'm told.
Yes, factor of a thousand maybe. Tempcos are much better too.
Startup, though, is less linear if the inductor has any
kind of nonlinear character; you want to worry about things
(self-resonant frequencies, or remanent field) when component
selection time comes around.
Sure. But an air-core inductor is pretty linear. Startup is always
tricky, keeping the first few periods equal to within picoseconds.
Coilcraft has some great parts. Their 1812SMS is kind of magic. I cut
out maybe 4 layers of pcb copper plane below a part like that so the
field doesn't bounce off copper and especially so the pads don't see a
bunch of dreadful FR4 capacitance.
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:04:20 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 6:08:46?PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:29:57 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:15:36?AM UTC-8, john larkin wrote: >>>>>
I would like a Spice that was, say, 500x as fast as mine is now,
nvidia or something. And I'd love some way to specify results and have >>>>>> a program juggle values and even library parts for a best solution. >>>>>>
Past attempts at such optimizations have tended to diverge. Even most >>>>>> interns are smarter than that.
That's why we have math, that tells us that linear equations (like SPICE solves)
have multiple ways to generate large numbers. It's catastrophe theory, >>>>> to be precise.
For a stable sine wave oscillator, you can't use ideal C, R, L, and amplifier
components; there won't ever be any solutions that don't diverge, because >>>>> the linear-differential-equation solutions all have a matrix raised to >>>>> a power (and the power goes up with time). It'll always exponentially >>>>> decay or explode, because NO available component tolerances
are negligible effects.
Depends on what you mean by “ideal.“ For a pure LTI system, I agree. >However, even SPICE isn’t really LTI—besides roundoff and truncation error, >it’s implemented using floating point, which has magnitude limits.
You can easily use a nice noiseless behavioral amp whose gain is a weak >function of the time-averaged amplitude.
That’s an idealized model of the HP200-style ALC.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 10:59:47 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs ><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:28:36?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:00:15 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 6:29:33?PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:The people have to be right for the process to be productive of ideas.
On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 7:43:34?AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote: >>> >> > On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 11:47:54 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
They are enough to specify a patentable idea. Reducing it to practice takes a lot more work, and documenting a complete system takes a lot of words (and pictures). Oddly enough, software can do a lot of the documentation.On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 7:06:28?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>> >> > >> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:
I don't think so. Just a few words are not enough to specify and generate a specific, reliable design.
There's not much I in AI. It's mostly a silly fad.For particular problems it can already find solutions that humans can't >>> >>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding
AlphaFold is well ahead of any expert, and some theorem-proving programs operate without making mistakes to a degree that allows them to outperform human mathematicians on specific complex problems. It really isn't any kid of silly fad.
But brainstorming isn't so-called. Done right, it really works.Mainly by discouraging status-seeking creeps from insisting on concentrating on their own ideas.
To be replaced by group concentration on no ideas at all.
Some people will poison a brainstorming session, and too much general
sociability in the room will reinforce conventional thinking.
https://resources.pcb.cadence.com/blog/2022-the-role-of-machine-learning-in-analog-circuit-design
That's absurd. Sounds like they are trying to sell cad options to
beginners.
https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/chip-design/ai-analog-design-migration-samsung-safe-forum-2023.html
Certainly a lot of computing helps design digital ICs, but I wouldn't
call that intelligence. Smart people wrote very specialized software.
I sometimes write software to solve circuit problems, but the software
just does what I told it to do.
https://www.planetanalog.com/what-can-ai-do-for-analog-design/
I'd love to have a good component selection tool. The intelligence
would be in inferring things from bad data sheets that have no
standards. It would of course have to read and understand application
schematics and mechanical drawings and find gotchas buried in
footnotes and graphs.
Find me a right-angle Gbit PoE compatible RJ45 jack that has multiple
drop-in sources, two LEDs on the high side, lots of stock from
non-Chinese sources, at a good price. They have to mount on my PCB and
ground to a cutout in my panel. That's an easy one.
Lots of sources for that, but if you want a good price, it will be made in Asia. The shielded ones will ground to the panel. High demand parts like that will have a long lead time:
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/w%C3%BCrth-elektronik/615008137421/2060608
Has AI ever invented anything?
https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded/article/21272567/electronic-design-ai-lends-a-helping-hand-with-analog-and-custom-ic-design
https://semiengineering.com/ai-for-circuit-design-quality-productivity-and-advanced-node-mapping/
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/31523/
The list is endless. Humans are not as unique and special as they make themselves out to be. They'll all be replaced by AI before long.
It's doing things like running through impossibly large numbers of permutations to find something useful, as with drug discovery. It's more the case creative people are using AI to enable inventive ideas.
That's not intelligent. It's just automating a lot of grunt work, as >programmed. Line monte carlo simulation. The person who set it up is
the intelligence. All that's new is having more compute power than we
had in the past.
Computers automate grunt work and let us work faster and better and
move up the abstraction stack. Nonlinear differential equations were
never much fun.
I would like a Spice that was, say, 500x as fast as mine is now,
nvidia or something. And I'd love some way to specify results and have
a program juggle values and even library parts for a best solution.
Past attempts at such optimizations have tended to diverge. Even most
interns are smarter than that.
I check up on Flux.ai now and then. I wonder when they will run out of
money.
Take a look at flux. It's funny.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:02:45 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 11:15:19 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:[snip]
That's not intelligent. It's just automating a lot of grunt work, as >>>programmed. Line monte carlo simulation. The person who set it up is
the intelligence. All that's new is having more compute power than we
had in the past.
John, AI is NOT just more computing power.
It is neural networks running on hardware that work well with NN
Yes and no. No computer hardware "works well with NN" (Neural
Networks), because nobody has invented a true direct associative
hardware memory yet, so the computer hardware roughly emulates the
desired NN kind and behaviors, at stunning expense in hardware and
electrical power (plus cooling systems to remove all that heat).
It is useful to note that the pacing task for implementing a neural
net in a digital computer is matrix inversion, where the matrix to be >inverted may be billions of lines by billions of rows, and is not at
all sparse. It's a long story, but well documented.
By contrast, the human brain has a volume of about 1.3 liters and
consumes about 20 watts, and contains something like 171 billion
cells, of which 86 billion are neurons. Computations are performed by
analog hardware, cells. The number of synapses per neuron is
something like a factor of ten thousand larger. Every synapse needs a
cell in the matrix holding at least an 8-bit value. And so on.
Joe Gwinn
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 11:15:19 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
That's not intelligent. It's just automating a lot of grunt work, as >>programmed. Line monte carlo simulation. The person who set it up is
the intelligence. All that's new is having more compute power than we
had in the past.
John, AI is NOT just more computing power.
It is neural networks running on hardware that work well with NN
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:38:28 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:02:45 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 11:15:19 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:[snip]
That's not intelligent. It's just automating a lot of grunt work, as >>>>programmed. Line monte carlo simulation. The person who set it up is >>>>the intelligence. All that's new is having more compute power than we >>>>had in the past.
John, AI is NOT just more computing power.
If it runs on a compuer it sure is.
It is neural networks running on hardware that work well with NN
Do any NNs work well? NNs are cargo-cult crude cartoons of an actual >organism. Single- and few-cell organisms without a nervous system
learn and do complex stuff, and our brain has billions.
Yes and no. No computer hardware "works well with NN" (Neural
Networks), because nobody has invented a true direct associative
hardware memory yet, so the computer hardware roughly emulates the
desired NN kind and behaviors, at stunning expense in hardware and >>electrical power (plus cooling systems to remove all that heat).
It is useful to note that the pacing task for implementing a neural
net in a digital computer is matrix inversion, where the matrix to be >>inverted may be billions of lines by billions of rows, and is not at
all sparse. It's a long story, but well documented.
By contrast, the human brain has a volume of about 1.3 liters and
consumes about 20 watts, and contains something like 171 billion
cells, of which 86 billion are neurons. Computations are performed by >>analog hardware, cells. The number of synapses per neuron is
something like a factor of ten thousand larger. Every synapse needs a
cell in the matrix holding at least an 8-bit value. And so on.
Joe Gwinn
And a human brain can play tennis, or recognize one face out of a
million, or design circuits, with wet chemistry gates that have
millisecond prop delays.
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:12:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:43:18 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 22:08:08 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:05:07 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>>>><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better >>>>>>microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out >>>>>>on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that >>>>>> > is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an >>>>>> > assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or >>>>>> > sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design >>>>>> > pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes >>>>>> > fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and >>>>>> > breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up >>>>>> > chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts. >>>>>> > Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconsious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some >>>>>> > extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling >>>>>> > stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound >>>>>>as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >>>>>>somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
If an idea is new, where else would come from?
You've often argued in favor of brainstorming, where you get a few smart >>>>>>people in front of a white board and try out ideas to find the best one >>>>>>and flesh it out. We've done that together, very fruitfully.
It's possible to do more or less the same thing by oneself, but it >>>>>>requires the ability to tolerate uncertainty for extended periods. >>>>>>(That's a skill well worth developing, which most people are really, >>>>>>really bad at, IME.)
The uncertainty period is probably necessary, to let ones neurons >>>>>prowl the noisy solution space. The period is usually a day or two, >>>>>but can be years.
Some engineers are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and want to lock >>>>>down a design as soon as possible, preferably something sanctioned by >>>>>some authority. I like to stay confused for a while.
I sometimes need to do a family of designs, rather than just one. >>>>>>Recently I've been working on some very fast, very cheap SPAD preamps, >>>>>>intended to go in the guts of positron-emission scanners.
Designs with lots of real-world constraints are often the most fun, and >>>>>>this one's specs include: 300-ps edges with 100-ps timing repeatability >>>>>>from unit to unit; no magnetics allowed; and a BOM cost of $1 or less. >>>>>>(You need a whole lot of channels, and PET and MRI machines are often >>>>>>combined.)
I do a fair amount of analysis of circuits of that sort, to figure out >>>>>>what actually limits their performance. It isn't super detailed--in >>>>>>this case, just enough to figure out whether it'll be the base-emitter >>>>>>time constant, the Miller effect, or the SPAD's series resistance that >>>>>>will be the limiting factor.
Certainly quantitative reality should filter the solution space. But >>>>>even that can be mostly intuitive. I was talking about that with C on >>>>>Friday, about how some people have good quantitative intuition and >>>>>some don't. She can look at soup in a round pot and know if it will >>>>>fit into a square plastic container, to about 10%. I can do that. >>>>>Neither of our spouses can.
Miller, I can deal with using circuit hacks. The BE time constant is >>>>>>Rbb' * Cbe, which gets slightly worse at high current, but is mainly a >>>>>>device parameter--to get a big improvement you have to change >>>>>>transistors. The SPAD can be negotiable depending on whose process >>>>>>you're making them on--when each machine needs thousands of them, >>>>>>vendors tend to listen.
Eventually, of course, you have to pick one and go with it, but picking >>>>>>a topology usually takes me an iteration or two.
Sometimes a circuit takes me dozens, lots of sheets in the trash can. >>>>>I think it's important to give as many ideas as possible a chance.
See Barrie Gilbert's essay "Where do little circuits come from?"
"Prod and poke" and "doodling" are suggested.
I agree with both of you. What Phil is doing is figuring out where to >>>>focus the brainstorming and fiddling, and the resulting wild >>>>alternatives can easily be assessed. It's at the very least an >>>>orthogonal method.
My personal experience is that iterations and inspirations require >>>>studying extensively followed by sleeping on it, so the metric isn't a >>>>few days, it's a few nights.
Actually, it is a few showers.
So, you're all wet?
That's the idea.
Actually, I also get ideas in the shower, probably because I stopped >>focusing so hard.
I think sleepytime ideas get delivered in a morning shower. I don't
have ideas if I shower later in the day.
"In London, where Southampton Row passes Russell Square,
across from the British Museum in Bloomsbury, Leo
Szilard waited irritably one gray Depression morning
for the stoplight to change. A trace of rain had fallen
during the night; Tuesday, September 12, 1933, dawned
cool, humid and dull. Drizzling rain would begin again
in early afternoon. When Szilard told the story later he
never mentioned his destination that morning. He may
have had none; he often walked to think. In any case
another destination intervened. The stoplight changed to
green. Szilard stepped off the curb. As he crossed the
street time cracked open before him and he saw a way to
the future, death into the world and all our woe,
the shape of things to come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Szilard
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 22:14:34 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:12:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:43:18 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 22:08:08 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:05:07 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>>>>><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better >>>>>>>microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out >>>>>>>on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that >>>>>>> > is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an >>>>>>> > assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or >>>>>>> > sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design >>>>>>> > pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes >>>>>>> > fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and >>>>>>> > breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up >>>>>>> > chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts. >>>>>>> > Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconscious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some >>>>>>> > extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling >>>>>>> > stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound >>>>>>>as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >>>>>>>somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
If an idea is new, where else would come from?
You've often argued in favor of brainstorming, where you get a few smart >>>>>>>people in front of a white board and try out ideas to find the best one >>>>>>>and flesh it out. We've done that together, very fruitfully.
It's possible to do more or less the same thing by oneself, but it >>>>>>>requires the ability to tolerate uncertainty for extended periods. >>>>>>>(That's a skill well worth developing, which most people are really, >>>>>>>really bad at, IME.)
The uncertainty period is probably necessary, to let ones neurons >>>>>>prowl the noisy solution space. The period is usually a day or two, >>>>>>but can be years.
Some engineers are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and want to lock >>>>>>down a design as soon as possible, preferably something sanctioned by >>>>>>some authority. I like to stay confused for a while.
I sometimes need to do a family of designs, rather than just one. >>>>>>>Recently I've been working on some very fast, very cheap SPAD preamps, >>>>>>>intended to go in the guts of positron-emission scanners.
Designs with lots of real-world constraints are often the most fun, and >>>>>>>this one's specs include: 300-ps edges with 100-ps timing repeatability >>>>>>>from unit to unit; no magnetics allowed; and a BOM cost of $1 or less. >>>>>>>(You need a whole lot of channels, and PET and MRI machines are often >>>>>>>combined.)
I do a fair amount of analysis of circuits of that sort, to figure out >>>>>>>what actually limits their performance. It isn't super detailed--in >>>>>>>this case, just enough to figure out whether it'll be the base-emitter >>>>>>>time constant, the Miller effect, or the SPAD's series resistance that >>>>>>>will be the limiting factor.
Certainly quantitative reality should filter the solution space. But >>>>>>even that can be mostly intuitive. I was talking about that with C on >>>>>>Friday, about how some people have good quantitative intuition and >>>>>>some don't. She can look at soup in a round pot and know if it will >>>>>>fit into a square plastic container, to about 10%. I can do that. >>>>>>Neither of our spouses can.
Miller, I can deal with using circuit hacks. The BE time constant is >>>>>>>Rbb' * Cbe, which gets slightly worse at high current, but is mainly a >>>>>>>device parameter--to get a big improvement you have to change >>>>>>>transistors. The SPAD can be negotiable depending on whose process >>>>>>>you're making them on--when each machine needs thousands of them, >>>>>>>vendors tend to listen.
Eventually, of course, you have to pick one and go with it, but picking >>>>>>>a topology usually takes me an iteration or two.
Sometimes a circuit takes me dozens, lots of sheets in the trash can. >>>>>>I think it's important to give as many ideas as possible a chance.
See Barrie Gilbert's essay "Where do little circuits come from?"
"Prod and poke" and "doodling" are suggested.
I agree with both of you. What Phil is doing is figuring out where to >>>>>focus the brainstorming and fiddling, and the resulting wild >>>>>alternatives can easily be assessed. It's at the very least an >>>>>orthogonal method.
My personal experience is that iterations and inspirations require >>>>>studying extensively followed by sleeping on it, so the metric isn't a >>>>>few days, it's a few nights.
Actually, it is a few showers.
So, you're all wet?
That's the idea.
Actually, I also get ideas in the shower, probably because I stopped >>>focusing so hard.
I think sleepytime ideas get delivered in a morning shower. I don't
have ideas if I shower later in the day.
I opened an email in the morning and took a shower and had a bunch of
ideas. So ideas both get delivered in the suds, and happen there too.
Other people have noted the creative powers of hot water falling on
your head.
Good book, First Steps by Jeremy DeSilva. It's about the evolution of
upright walking, but he mentions that various great thinkers had ideas >sleeping, showering, or walking. Walking works best in the woods, not
on city streets.
On a sunny day (Mon, 05 Feb 2024 14:47:33 -0800) it happened john larkin ><jl@650pot.com> wrote in <jso2sil36ljn7ucbpmgbup90ki9ub71dd0@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 22:14:34 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:12:36 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:43:18 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 22:08:08 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:05:07 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 18:16:01 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>>>>>><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
JL wrote an interesting post in the depths of the "better >>>>>>>>microelectronics from coal" thread that I thought was worth pulling out >>>>>>>>on its own.
On 2024-01-21 10:12, John Larkin wrote:>
"...what IS electronic
design, and what's the best way to do it? <snip>
Short answer, cobbling. When presented with a problem or an
opportunity to design electronics, the most efficient way to do that >>>>>>>> > is to grab a piece of paper and immediately sketch a circuit or an >>>>>>>> > assembly. Sometimes one can do that instantly, without thinking, or >>>>>>>> > sometimes one can ignore the issue for a few days and then the design
pops up. Sometimes brainstorming and whiteboarding help. Sometimes >>>>>>>> > fiddling with Spice helps.
All that literature research and math analysis and simulation and >>>>>>>> > breadboarding and prototyping are just slow and expensive follow-up >>>>>>>> > chores for people who don't have 100% confidence in their instincts. >>>>>>>> > Analysis, sometimes prudent to do, but not design.
Design is subconscious and instinctive. And it's free! And to some >>>>>>>> > extent, it can be taught, but seldom is.
Most of us design things to sell, so do whatever works. We're selling
stuff, not publishing papers.
Hmm. I don't think that I agree in general, because you make it sound >>>>>>>>as though the process were just intuitively plucking one idea out of >>>>>>>>somewhere-or-other and cranking it out.
If an idea is new, where else would come from?
You've often argued in favor of brainstorming, where you get a few smart
people in front of a white board and try out ideas to find the best one >>>>>>>>and flesh it out. We've done that together, very fruitfully.
It's possible to do more or less the same thing by oneself, but it >>>>>>>>requires the ability to tolerate uncertainty for extended periods. >>>>>>>>(That's a skill well worth developing, which most people are really, >>>>>>>>really bad at, IME.)
The uncertainty period is probably necessary, to let ones neurons >>>>>>>prowl the noisy solution space. The period is usually a day or two, >>>>>>>but can be years.
Some engineers are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and want to lock >>>>>>>down a design as soon as possible, preferably something sanctioned by >>>>>>>some authority. I like to stay confused for a while.
I sometimes need to do a family of designs, rather than just one. >>>>>>>>Recently I've been working on some very fast, very cheap SPAD preamps, >>>>>>>>intended to go in the guts of positron-emission scanners.
Designs with lots of real-world constraints are often the most fun, and >>>>>>>>this one's specs include: 300-ps edges with 100-ps timing repeatability >>>>>>>>from unit to unit; no magnetics allowed; and a BOM cost of $1 or less. >>>>>>>>(You need a whole lot of channels, and PET and MRI machines are often >>>>>>>>combined.)
I do a fair amount of analysis of circuits of that sort, to figure out >>>>>>>>what actually limits their performance. It isn't super detailed--in >>>>>>>>this case, just enough to figure out whether it'll be the base-emitter >>>>>>>>time constant, the Miller effect, or the SPAD's series resistance that >>>>>>>>will be the limiting factor.
Certainly quantitative reality should filter the solution space. But >>>>>>>even that can be mostly intuitive. I was talking about that with C on >>>>>>>Friday, about how some people have good quantitative intuition and >>>>>>>some don't. She can look at soup in a round pot and know if it will >>>>>>>fit into a square plastic container, to about 10%. I can do that. >>>>>>>Neither of our spouses can.
Miller, I can deal with using circuit hacks. The BE time constant is >>>>>>>>Rbb' * Cbe, which gets slightly worse at high current, but is mainly a >>>>>>>>device parameter--to get a big improvement you have to change >>>>>>>>transistors. The SPAD can be negotiable depending on whose process >>>>>>>>you're making them on--when each machine needs thousands of them, >>>>>>>>vendors tend to listen.
Eventually, of course, you have to pick one and go with it, but picking >>>>>>>>a topology usually takes me an iteration or two.
Sometimes a circuit takes me dozens, lots of sheets in the trash can. >>>>>>>I think it's important to give as many ideas as possible a chance. >>>>>>>
See Barrie Gilbert's essay "Where do little circuits come from?"
"Prod and poke" and "doodling" are suggested.
I agree with both of you. What Phil is doing is figuring out where to >>>>>>focus the brainstorming and fiddling, and the resulting wild >>>>>>alternatives can easily be assessed. It's at the very least an >>>>>>orthogonal method.
My personal experience is that iterations and inspirations require >>>>>>studying extensively followed by sleeping on it, so the metric isn't a >>>>>>few days, it's a few nights.
Actually, it is a few showers.
So, you're all wet?
That's the idea.
Actually, I also get ideas in the shower, probably because I stopped >>>>focusing so hard.
I think sleepytime ideas get delivered in a morning shower. I don't
have ideas if I shower later in the day.
I opened an email in the morning and took a shower and had a bunch of >>ideas. So ideas both get delivered in the suds, and happen there too.
Other people have noted the creative powers of hot water falling on
your head.
Good book, First Steps by Jeremy DeSilva. It's about the evolution of >>upright walking, but he mentions that various great thinkers had ideas >>sleeping, showering, or walking. Walking works best in the woods, not
on city streets.
I have been doing 1 to 2 hours meditation every day since the mid seventies. >Had ideas in the shower too.
Walking is good, I had a box full of medals as a kid for completing long marches.
Sill running faster than everybody here it seems, yesterday big storm
was on the bike, flying with wind in back.
On the way back walking with bike in hand.. now way with this bike against the wind
no gears...
More storm coming...
Satellite dish still works...
Design subconscious?
I dunno, it is like language, you combine words to express what you want, >like sub-circuits you have build and tested or code you have written and tested.
The vocabulary gets ever bigger, I speak 4 languages, French Dutch German and English
The learning never stops.
Several computer languages, several asm for different controllers I came about over the years
Life is a learning adventure, like living in the wild or in the civilized?? world
Better stop here.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 84:26:49 |
| Calls: | 6,717 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,247 |
| Messages: | 5,358,258 |
| Posted today: | 1 |