Driver to drive?

"john jardine" <john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:cjl343$le8$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Tim Shoppa" <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote in message
news:bec993c8.0410010459.2ae41db2@posting.google.com...
Everybody's favorite app note writer was on NPR recently for
his hi-tech sculptures:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4053122

Now we see where the pictures of prototypes at the end of the
Linear Technology app notes come from :).

Tim.

Looks like he collaborated with Fred B on design #4 :)
Click to expand...
Looks like the student has surpassed the master :)

Benches too have some similarity. At least had when I was much younger. I
tend now to be a bit more organized (put all those components into more than
2 boxes) because of SMDs and it's much less fun when people see my bench.


--
Thanks,
Fred.
 
Hi Chris,

Neuradapter? (neuro-adapter)

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com
 
Joerg wrote:

Hi Chris,

Neuradapter? (neuro-adapter)

Regards, Joerg
Click to expand...
Leading on to neuro-adaptive... something

We're getting there. This sounds like real good marketing stuff.

Gibbo
 
Robert Monsen wrote:

ChrisGibboGibson wrote:

I think they want a buzz phrase. I'm sure the same idea has been called
some
great names in the past.

Suggestions ?

How about 'intelligent self-calibration'?
Click to expand...
Which in conjunction with Joerg's post gives us
"neuro-adaptive-self-calibration"

Now I *do* like that!

Gibbo
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that ChrisGibboGibson
<chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote (in <20041002155610.11054.00001304@mb-
m14.aol.com>) about 'Marketing blurb - bullsh*t baffles etc', on Sat, 2
Oct 2004:
like "adaptive" but not the "tuning"

Adaptive *something" would be good I think.
Click to expand...
Generating product names is an activity that is VERY well paid. So, if I
suggested 'Automutator', I'd have to charge you a million dollars. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:53:23 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

There's still enough time to vote Libertarian.
Click to expand...
Only if you help change our voting system, as described at:
http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/voting.html
Otherwise, you'd be "throwing away" your vote!

;)

Jon
 
John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that ChrisGibboGibson
chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote (in <20041002155610.11054.00001304@mb-
m14.aol.com>) about 'Marketing blurb - bullsh*t baffles etc', on Sat, 2
Oct 2004:
like "adaptive" but not the "tuning"

Adaptive *something" would be good I think.

Generating product names is an activity that is VERY well paid. So, if I
suggested 'Automutator', I'd have to charge you a million dollars. (;-)
Click to expand...
Very good. Except if an employee came up with that I'd probably sack him :)

Gibbo
 
It does what plenty of others already on the market does but in a very
different way.
Click to expand...
who cares how it does it.>Problem is, the marketing lads want to know what to
call it. It's almost a
software implementation of a neural network.

I think they want a buzz phrase. I'm sure the same idea has been called some
great names in the past.
Click to expand...
You could call it self tuning, like everyone else does.
 
We do use uPs where needed. But often they are included where a 4011 and a
few
hours brain work would have easily done the job.
Click to expand...
I used a uP to flash an LED once...

Well more accurately, it was two lasers, sending independent messages in
morse code.
One chip, two mosfets.

I know what you mean. I got started when tubes and RTL were still popular.

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR
 
"Dave VanHorn" wrote:

We do use uPs where needed. But often they are included where a 4011 and a
few
hours brain work would have easily done the job.

I used a uP to flash an LED once...

Well more accurately, it was two lasers, sending independent messages in
morse code.
One chip, two mosfets.

I know what you mean. I got started when tubes and RTL were still popular.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Often, for a one off, a uP is quicker, but if it has to go into
production a few hours extra work can drop the per unit cost by 50% quite
easily by using off the shelf stuff (technical phrase there). Even a drop of 5%
(or less depending on volume) can make a *huge* difference.

One of my techies is a real old hand who has never done *anything* with uPs. I
pass everything past him before going to a uP design. 9 times out of 10 (a
primitive market we are in !) he can do it with standard ICs at 3 pence each.

Gibbo
 
"john jardine" wrote:

"ChrisGibboGibson" <chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041002175124.11054.00001310@mb-m14.aol.com...
"john jardine" wrote:



"ChrisGibboGibson" <chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041002150752.11054.00001292@mb-m14.aol.com...
We have another product being laucnched in about 2 months time.
[-]

The last 2 products were just improved versions of competitors products.
This
is something totally new. I *know* they'll sell it. But a buzz phrase for
the
way it works would be nice.

Gibbo

In which case I'd maybe go with Ken Smiths idea of getting your name on it
somewhere.
In my WW11 radio collection I've a type T1333, downed aircraft, emergency
distress transmitter. Nobody knows it as that. Because of it's shape, it's
simply called a "Gibson girl" unit.
regards
john
Click to expand...
Was that my great uncle ?

Gibbo
 
"Dave VanHorn" wrote:

Exactly. Often, for a one off, a uP is quicker, but if it has to go into
production a few hours extra work can drop the per unit cost by 50% quite
easily by using off the shelf stuff (technical phrase there). Even a drop
of 5%
(or less depending on volume) can make a *huge* difference.

If the spec has any wiggle in it at all,
Click to expand...
I love people that use technical phrases like me.

you are often better off with a uP
implementation that can be tweaked with a firmware reload, until you know
for sure there won't be any changes.

In my printer project www.mobilecommand.net I used an AVR Tiny-26 as the
battery charger.
It even does the current regulation in firmware. (7 bit 500kHz)
Due to some @#!@%!$#@ Chinese batteries, and some bad specs, this approach
has saved us a major recall. All four processors are field-reloadable, and
you can't "brick" it.
Click to expand...
Again it depends upon the amount of field checking before hand and the volume
of sales.

Gibbo
 
ftls1@uaf.edu wrote:

Hi,All


As is well known, digital design is very easy to make a low-frequency
16-bit circuits. But now I have a square wave working at 35GHz, how
can I make an appropriate counter to measure this signal.btw,
resolution of ps(-1) is okey.


thanks!
Click to expand...
If it's fairly narrowband the standard thing to do is to heterodyne it
down to something more reasonable and count that.

For instance, if you have a signal that varies between 33 & 37GHz you
can mix it with 32GHz and run it into a counter that can take 5GHz. You
should be able to get all the bits from Agilent.

Of course if it's sometimes 35GHz and sometimes nothing at all then
you're stuck needing something fast...

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
In article <20041002150752.11054.00001292@mb-m14.aol.com>,
ChrisGibboGibson <chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote:
We have another product being laucnched in about 2 months time.
[.. request for suggested names for process ..]
Click to expand...

You could write a paper discribing the method used and publish it
somewhere. You can then call the method after your self. Then the
marketing people can say "a real time implementation of the Gibson
optimization method".

If you patent it, you can just say "a patented method"


Depending on the sort of industry your are selling into, you can use some
of the following discriptions:

Global optimization
Self tuning
Retro-encabulation (if it syncronizes grammeters)
Noise reduction
Error detection and correction
Spectral enhancement
real-time deframbulation
NNM (No Name Method)





--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
In article <20041002155610.11054.00001304@mb-m14.aol.com>,
ChrisGibboGibson <chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
I like "adaptive" but not the "tuning"

Adaptive *something" would be good I think.
Click to expand...
Adaptive:

optimization
filtering
fitting
convergance

interspectral Gibboscopy

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
Depends greatly on the tape recorder.
Try recording white noise, then on playback, see what the response curve
looks like.
In order to get clean edges at 3kHz, you'll need at least 6kHz bandwidth.
Otherwise, the output will be a triangle wave, at best.

What I'm proposing is really pretty simple, other than the manchester
encode/decode.


--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR
 
"Dave VanHorn" wrote

Once I knew what the problem was, I was able to change the firmware to
charge at a rate the batteries could tolerate. Turns out that about C/3 is
all they could do, and I had to adjust temperature limits as well. MOST of
them could do 1C charge (as specified) just fine, but as has been my
experience with Chineese suppliers, the samples are just fine.. It's the
later production that gets interesting.

There was a time that I was buying magnets that were supposed to be matched
within 5% (no big trick) but our vendor started using chinese sources
without telling us, and the peak flux went wild, 20-2200 gauss in the same
batch! That's a bit out of tolerance!
Click to expand...
Reminds me of an importer/customer who sent us a sample unit for a full test
and report. Unit built in France. Sample was brilliant, did everyting it said
on the tin. Production units, built in China ..... every one blew up. Nothing
like the one I looked at.

Gibbo
 
Subject: Re: Something to ponder
From: kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith)
Date: 10/3/04 3:07 AM GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: <cjnmt2$9h2$2@blue.rahul.net

In article <20041002214044.15758.00001353@mb-m13.aol.com>,
ChrisGibboGibson <chrisgibbogibson@aol.com> wrote:
I was bored so.........

Worth trying for fun.


How about this:

R R ! \
Vin -/\/\/\-------/\/\/\---------------!+ \
! ! ! ------- TooHi to CPU
!!- ---C ---!- /
Ton ----!! --- ! ! /
!!- ! !
! ! REF
GND GND


Loop forever;

TempBit := TooHi;
Ton := TempBit;
Answer := Answer + TempBit - Answer / 65536;
Display Answer;
end;


if the time canstant is long enough, the "answer" value settles to:

65536 * Vin / (2 * Vref)


You can make the main loop of the code do it.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
Click to expand...
But mine's actually sensible and serves a useful purpose !

Or did I miss something in your post ?

Gibbo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top