Hans Camenzind's (free, downloadable) Book

Fred Bloggs · Jun 6, 2004

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Those that feel the need to state trivially obvious bits of information,
are often those that have just learnt said information and now feel so
"great" about repeating what we all know, in order to impress us that
the now know such trivialities. It dont work. Trust me.

You are the one who kept characterizing engineering as "simple"- the
opposite of "simple" is "complex"- it is only natural then that I should
mention "complex"- and remind you that is has little use in engineering.

A "good" engineer is one for whom the work is "simple"- if it's too
"complex" for him then he's in over his head and no "good." So by your
brain-damaged reasoning "good" engineers are no good, and no good
engineers are "good."

This damned non-sense about intellectual merit of the work is a bunch of
dumb crap for students, MENSA members, and others with arrested
development. There was probably an equally huge number of equally
worthless arm chair observers in the early 1960's whining about how
simple the invention of the transistor was and at the same time praising
Widlar's genius in designing a producible IC opamp as justification for
doing nothing noteworthy themselves. Widlar's record is clear: HE WAS A
MAJOR CATALYST IN LAUNCHING AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY- the likes of you
wouldn't even be employed if people like him had not come along. And I
don't give a damn about whether someone else *could have* done the same
thing- Widlar did what Widlar did. Q.E.D.

Kevin Aylward · Jun 6, 2004

Mike wrote:

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:18:53 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:48:17 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:

I am well aware that, after the fact, many
simple things took extensive work and inventiveness to get there.

Perhaps you'd care to share one or two of those with us? Or are they
limited to Einstein?

Dirac equation
Compton scattering
de Broglie wavelength
Black body radiation law

Oh. I thought you were talking about simple results in engineering,
not physics.

Oh.. well there is Shannon's information theorem (H=BW.log (1+S/N)).
Niquists stability plot is another one, as is the pole in rhp as
unstable, is another. The butterworth filter also comes to mind, as do
the other standard filters. All of these results actually have quite a
lot of background to them, yet for example, anyone with with simple math
can design and understand a butterworh filter.

Its hard to come up with simple, but *clever* circuits in electronics,
because there arnt that many. That's my point. The early developers
simply connected a few things up, essentially, at random, an analysed
the results. The point here, is that the number of random
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html) connections
that need to be made with transistors to achieve a useful result is
rather small. Doing something similar with physics equations usually
gets you nowhere.

Pretty much all of the standard transistor configurations all fell out
in the wash as soon as people actually became acquainted with the
problems they were designed to solve (e.g. current mirrors, cascodes,
diff pairs etc) because they are indeed *intrinsically* simple. This is
in sharp contrast to ideas such as the Alcubierre warp drive (e.g. 1994,
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html) which only came about
some 80 years after the core theory was available, i.e. 10000's missed
it.

As I have said, people often assume that just becuse something was first
, it is a mark of "greatness". It isnt. The basic building block
circuits of electronics, in my opinion, don't qualify for such
greatness. Sure, someone had to come up with them, but just about anyone
involved at the start of this field would indeed have come up with them
if given the opportunity.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Kevin Aylward · Jun 6, 2004

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Those that feel the need to state trivially obvious bits of
information, are often those that have just learnt said information
and now feel so "great" about repeating what we all know, in order
to impress us that the now know such trivialities. It dont work.
Trust me.

You are the one who kept characterizing engineering as "simple"

Misleading. I said its same shit, different day. Engineering can be
quite complex, however, complexity is not a measure of merit either,
although many complex constructions are very worthy of respect.

- the
opposite of "simple" is "complex"- it is only natural then that I
should mention "complex"- and remind you that is has little use in
engineering.

Oh dear...simply clueless again.

Of course it is. The space shuttle is very complex indeed. The space
shuttle gave lots of engineers jobs, so it clearly has some use.

You just keep putting your foot in it. Just about *all* of engineering
nowadays is very complex indeed, e.g. Pentium - 50 million transistors,
Windows, 40 millions lines of code. Look sonny, all the easy things have
already been done, only the complex things are left. If it were all so
simple, we would all be doing it an become millionaires.

Your coming across as a naive, rank amateur here. You've picked up some
little notion that "simple is best", and regurgitating it, without even
the slightest idea of when it is applied.

A "good" engineer is one for whom the work is "simple"- if it's too
"complex" for him then he's in over his head and no "good."

Oh dear...I cant believe I am reading such garbage.

Einstein worked 10 years on GTR. The details are amazingly complex,
irrespective that the basic principle was simple. So, Einstein was in
over his head was he cos it was so difficult...right on dude...

Again, you show a complete lack of knowledge about what engineering is
all about. Do you spend your life in your bed room? Today, any major
engineering problem is complex, requiring teams of people to do things,
for the first time, that is difficult. However, its still same shit
different day. It don't matter what color or consistancy that the shit
is, its still shit.

So by your
brain-damaged reasoning "good" engineers are no good, and no good
engineers are "good."

Engineers that can do what should be expected of them, e.g. 4 year B.Sc.
degree, achieving successful products are "normal" merit wise. That's
what they get paid to do. dah...

This damned non-sense about intellectual merit of the work is a bunch
of dumb crap for students, MENSA members, and others with arrested
development.

Then why are you resoundingly defending the notion that some specific
individual is "great"? Your the one making a meal of it, not me. I
simple pointed out that the use of the phrase "great designers" is,
essentially, an oxymoron.

I agree that in the big scheme of things, its *all* pointless, and in
that sense, merit is completely meaningless. I have gave much detail on
why this is so (http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html). None
of us have any ultimate control of our life. There is no "I". We are
machines operating under the laws of physics. Period.

This discussion is a *relative* discussion, ignoring the fact that we
are all worthless. Giving that there are Replicators (i.e. us) which
generate, replicate and select traits, what Replicators show traits that
are consistant with a "great" ability to replicate their traits numbers,
irespective of whether such displayed traits are directly effecting such
ability. That is, "better" traits are indicators of beter replication
numbers in general, even if not actually applied to generating such
larger numbers at that instance.

There was probably an equally huge number of equally
worthless arm chair observers in the early 1960's whining about how
simple the invention of the transistor was and at the same time
praising Widlar's genius in designing a producible IC opamp as
justification for doing nothing noteworthy themselves.

Indeed.

Widlar's
record is clear: HE WAS A MAJOR CATALYST IN LAUNCHING AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY-

Irrelevant, even if true.

the likes of you wouldn't even be employed if people like
him had not come along.

ROTHFMAO.

Complete and utter nonsense. Widlar, as was/is any other *circuit*
designer, completely and totally irrelevant to the state of electronics
as we know it today, or to the world at large. We arnt that important.
How you make such a daft claim is truly amazing. Its a complete non
starter. You just making yourself look a right twat.

There's millions of EE's. The basic building block circuits are truly
trivial, and *based* on trivial concepts, and take essentially, no time
to "invent" them. Indeed, many transistor circuits were already invented
in tube designs. Any tom dick or harry would have came up with them,
therefor there is little merit in the person coming up with them for
that reason only. Its coin toss. Its that simple.

I do agree, that the transistor *may* have been developed, say 10 years
later, if certain individuals were not involved, and even so, I agree,
that this would not diminish the merit of the originators.

And I don't give a damn about whether someone
else *could have* done the same thing- Widlar did what Widlar did.

Obviously you do. You don't seem to get the point that *if* millions of
others can also do something, you can't go around saying that someone
was "great" just because he happened to be first by force of
circumstances.

You need to get over this hero worship bit dude.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Fred Bloggs · Jun 6, 2004

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Look sonny, all the easy things have
already been done, only the complex things are left.

You're just not getting it, dimwit, and that statement above illustrates
exactly what I'm talking about. You arrogant mental midgets who
trivialize the work of the giants always say stupid things like that.
The "complex things" of today are the "easy things" of tomorrow- and
what it takes to make this come about is the first individual with
insight to make it so. This will not be you- you are quite mediocre in
that respect- as evidenced by your attitude, complacency, and delusions.

Kevin Aylward · Jun 6, 2004

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Look sonny, all the easy things have
already been done, only the complex things are left.

You're just not getting it, dimwit, and that statement above
illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. You arrogant mental
midgets who trivialize the work of the giants always say stupid
things like that.

Again, still simply clueless.

The "complex things" of today are the "easy things"
of tomorrow-

Oh dear...You simply don't have the smarts to understand mate. Again,
you preach to the converted. Sure, I agree, there are many things that
were difficult in the past, that are now simple. This is obvious to us
all, so again, the fact that you feel the need to try and impress us
with such trivial statements only indicates your limited view of the
world. I'm simply way, way a head of you on this.

However, there are also many, many things that were difficult when first
thought of, and are still difficult now. In fact, millions of them are,
essentially, still impossible. To not realise this means you are a
complete novice, such that further discussion is completly pointless.

and what it takes to make this come about is the first
individual with insight to make it so.

Nonsense. You have no idea what your talking about. I still cant believe
I am reading such drivel.

As I have explained to great lengths, sure *some* firsts have merit.
*Most* do not. What part of "pet rock" did you have trouble with?

What don't you understand about the difference between "most" and
"some". Did you actually take English language at school?

That's why you are so stupid. You can't seem to get it that that only
*some* not *all* firsts have any merit. Continuing to claim that all
firsts have merit, is de facto proof that your clueless.

What part of billions and billions of firsts are you going to have
trouble dealing with?. Like, they're all great. Get real you twat.

This will not be you- you are
quite mediocre in that respect- as evidenced by your attitude,
complacency, and delusions.

All you have shown is that the only way to address you is "sonny boy".
Your way out of your depth. You spout of words, yet say nothing new. Its
all vacuous rhetoric, with no evidence to back anything up. Indeed, as
you hold the view that all firsts make someone great, you are
contradicting yourself as I must be also be "great". I am certainly the
first to use this (http://www.anasoft.co.uk/DeviceDesigner.html) this
method in a spice program.

Second, you obviously failed 101 logic from you last paragraph here.

Now go away, and play with your dolls.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Jim Thompson · Jun 6, 2004

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:08:32 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Look sonny, all the easy things have
already been done, only the complex things are left.

You're just not getting it, dimwit, and that statement above illustrates
exactly what I'm talking about. You arrogant mental midgets who
trivialize the work of the giants always say stupid things like that.
The "complex things" of today are the "easy things" of tomorrow- and
what it takes to make this come about is the first individual with
insight to make it so. This will not be you- you are quite mediocre in
that respect- as evidenced by your attitude, complacency, and delusions.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Fred Bloggs · Jun 6, 2004

Kevin Aylward wrote:
[...snip garbage...]

You need to just stick to whatever simpleminded and non-discretionary
work that dead-wood laden cesspool Texas Instruments gives you, and
don't worry about anything else.

It is clear that you suffer from severe brain damage and arrested
development from too many years of excessive substance abuse; and , yes,
it is an established scientific fact that many of the hallucinogenic
compounds do in fact arrest intellectual and emotional development so
that you remain at age 16 or whenever it was you started- no matter how
old and decrepit you become physically.

Jim Thompson · Jun 6, 2004

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:39:08 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
[...snip garbage...]

You need to just stick to whatever simpleminded and non-discretionary
work that dead-wood laden cesspool Texas Instruments gives you, and
don't worry about anything else.

It is clear that you suffer from severe brain damage and arrested
development from too many years of excessive substance abuse; and , yes,
it is an established scientific fact that many of the hallucinogenic
compounds do in fact arrest intellectual and emotional development so
that you remain at age 16 or whenever it was you started- no matter how
old and decrepit you become physically.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Kevin Aylward · Jun 7, 2004

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
[...snip garbage...]

You need to just stick to whatever simpleminded and non-discretionary
work that dead-wood laden cesspool Texas Instruments gives you, and
don't worry about anything else.

It is clear that you suffer from severe brain damage and arrested
development from too many years of excessive substance abuse;

Oh...

and ,
yes, it is an established scientific fact that many of the
hallucinogenic compounds do in fact arrest intellectual and emotional
development so that you remain at age 16 or whenever it was you
started- no matter how old and decrepit you become physically.

Yep. Unable to refute any of my technical arguments (e.g. violation of
probability theory) so its down to personal insults as your only avenue
of recourse left. Good one. Very original method.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Subhajit Sen · Jun 10, 2004

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots of
truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things that
would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached to them
as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons worth. The only
reason that certain names are attached to such trivial, obvious
circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being first to do
something is not, on its own, a measure of value.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I think whether electronics is on par with physics debate
somewhat boils down to the question of whether Art is
is on par with Science. Both Art and Science are Important
and Successful. Whether we like it or not, there
is no question that a lot of engineering judgements made
as to why we selected a particular circuit or architecture
boil down to intuition/guesswork/prior-experience etc.
that cannot be nailed down to logical arguments.
The creativity involved is akin to artistic creativity
of humans esp. those who are handicapped/challenged.
The situation seems to be getting even more difficult
nowadays when analog designers(including those doing
IC/VLSI) are expected to design circuits working in
a very hostile digital environments of supply and substrate noise,
thermal gradients, emi,rfi etc. In a way successful
analog designers today are even greater than the "greats"
of the past(names like Widlar etc.).

Nevertheless, I would agree that a lot of well known circuits with
names appended to them: e.g. "Darlington pair", "Wilson" or "Widlar"
CS
appear to be trivial.(An analogy would be "Rolle's theorem" in
contrast with say "L'Hospital's rule" in any calculus book

).

The interesting question from an analog designer's perspective is,
is designing an 18-bit self-calibrated "embedded" A/D converter more
difficult/challenging(and more deserving of his time and energy)
than analog neural network that can do difficult computational
tasks with very low power?

Regards,
Subhajit
(An analog designer)

Terry Given · Jun 10, 2004

"Subhajit Sen" <sen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:67e24816.0406092308.6b3592ac@posting.google.com...

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots of
truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things that
would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached to them
as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons worth. The only
reason that certain names are attached to such trivial, obvious
circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being first to do
something is not, on its own, a measure of value.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I think whether electronics is on par with physics debate
somewhat boils down to the question of whether Art is
is on par with Science. Both Art and Science are Important
and Successful. Whether we like it or not, there
is no question that a lot of engineering judgements made
as to why we selected a particular circuit or architecture
boil down to intuition/guesswork/prior-experience etc.
that cannot be nailed down to logical arguments.

Its not particularly meaningful to compare the two - why stop there, why not
debate pottery vs euclidean geometry....

But I certainly disagree strongly with your suggestion re. the "art" aspect.
Its precisely the fact that its NOT art, its just rigorously applied (often
fairly basic, usually classical) physics that makes analogue electronics so
much fun. The best analog designers I have met/corresponded with/read their
books are all very good "applied" classical physicists (listen to the
physicists complain about that). Read any decent text on analogue design,
and you pretty soon discover that its all just maxwells equations (even
thermal stuff

. Good analog designers know this, and they know all the
approximations (lumped vs distributed elements etc) that are in common use,
and therefore when and where to apply them (or not).

the not-so-good analog designers never really know what is going on, and so
stuff like "RF" is this scary, magical so-called art. Good experience is
learning how relevant performance characteristics actually wind up in the
real world (eg hard-to-tune circuits that are highly sensitive to tolerance,
low or no noise margins etc).

obviously the detailed semiconductor physics is more complex than say
faradays law (oh yeah - try complex 3D geometry with nasty sharp corners

,
but again (all bar bleeding-edge research) is just physics, so can be
learned, understood and applied.

The creativity involved is akin to artistic creativity
of humans esp. those who are handicapped/challenged.
The situation seems to be getting even more difficult
nowadays when analog designers(including those doing
IC/VLSI) are expected to design circuits working in
a very hostile digital environments of supply and substrate noise,
thermal gradients, emi,rfi etc. In a way successful
analog designers today are even greater than the "greats"
of the past(names like Widlar etc.).

IMO digital design is straightforward for good analog designers, who
immediately look at L,C, dI/dt, dV/dt, impedances, reflections,
crosstalk......although designing complex analogue circuits to work in the
presence of digital "mess" is of course complex (but still not "mysterious")

Nevertheless, I would agree that a lot of well known circuits with
names appended to them: e.g. "Darlington pair", "Wilson" or "Widlar"
CS
appear to be trivial.(An analogy would be "Rolle's theorem" in
contrast with say "L'Hospital's rule" in any calculus book ).

The interesting question from an analog designer's perspective is,
is designing an 18-bit self-calibrated "embedded" A/D converter more
difficult/challenging(and more deserving of his time and energy)
than analog neural network that can do difficult computational
tasks with very low power?

I dunno about you, but I will design pretty much whatever I get paid to
design - cash is good.

I like power supplies

Regards,
Subhajit
(An analog designer)

Cheers
Terry

Kevin Aylward · Jun 10, 2004

Subhajit Sen wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots
of truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things
that would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached
to them as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons
worth. The only reason that certain names are attached to such
trivial, obvious circuits, is that others were not present at the
time. Being first to do something is not, on its own, a measure of
value.

I think whether electronics is on par with physics debate
somewhat boils down to the question of whether Art is
is on par with Science.

I don't see that as relevant to the issue I am addressing. The deal in
electronics is that is is engineering. It is not dealing with
*fundamentally* new things. It is only applying existing knowledge to
new situations. its a different thought process. One is trying to figure
out, how do I use what I have. The other is how do I create a new have.

Note, I am not implying that the "worth" of physics is better than
electronics. I also agree that there is a certain amount of
arbitrariness in all of this.

Both Art and Science are Important
and Successful. Whether we like it or not, there is no question

Oh but there is a question.

that a lot of engineering judgements made
as to why we selected a particular circuit or architecture
boil down to intuition/guesswork/prior-experience etc.
that cannot be nailed down to logical arguments.

Thats my point, they can be.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html

Design is not magic. Its essential method is easily explainable.

The creativity involved is akin to artistic creativity
of humans esp. those who are handicapped/challenged.
The situation seems to be getting even more difficult
nowadays when analog designers(including those doing
IC/VLSI) are expected to design circuits working in
a very hostile digital environments of supply and substrate noise,
thermal gradients, emi,rfi etc. In a way successful
analog designers today are even greater than the "greats"
of the past(names like Widlar etc.).

Oh dear...

Nevertheless, I would agree that a lot of well known circuits with
names appended to them: e.g. "Darlington pair", "Wilson" or "Widlar"
CS
appear to be trivial.(An analogy would be "Rolle's theorem" in
contrast with say "L'Hospital's rule" in any calculus book ).

Ah...I developed an dependant proof of L'Hospital's rule that I was
quite chuffed at.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Terry Given · Jun 10, 2004

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9wYxc.3$N4.1@nurse.blueyonder.net...

Subhajit Sen wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots
of truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things
that would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached
to them as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons
worth. The only reason that certain names are attached to such
trivial, obvious circuits, is that others were not present at the
time. Being first to do something is not, on its own, a measure of
value.

I think whether electronics is on par with physics debate
somewhat boils down to the question of whether Art is
is on par with Science.

I don't see that as relevant to the issue I am addressing. The deal in
electronics is that is is engineering. It is not dealing with
*fundamentally* new things. It is only applying existing knowledge to
new situations. its a different thought process. One is trying to figure
out, how do I use what I have. The other is how do I create a new have.

Note, I am not implying that the "worth" of physics is better than
electronics. I also agree that there is a certain amount of
arbitrariness in all of this.

Both Art and Science are Important
and Successful. Whether we like it or not, there is no question

Oh but there is a question.

that a lot of engineering judgements made
as to why we selected a particular circuit or architecture
boil down to intuition/guesswork/prior-experience etc.
that cannot be nailed down to logical arguments.

Thats my point, they can be.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html

Design is not magic. Its essential method is easily explainable.

The creativity involved is akin to artistic creativity
of humans esp. those who are handicapped/challenged.
The situation seems to be getting even more difficult
nowadays when analog designers(including those doing
IC/VLSI) are expected to design circuits working in
a very hostile digital environments of supply and substrate noise,
thermal gradients, emi,rfi etc. In a way successful
analog designers today are even greater than the "greats"
of the past(names like Widlar etc.).

Oh dear...

Nevertheless, I would agree that a lot of well known circuits with
names appended to them: e.g. "Darlington pair", "Wilson" or "Widlar"
CS
appear to be trivial.(An analogy would be "Rolle's theorem" in
contrast with say "L'Hospital's rule" in any calculus book ).

Ah...I developed an dependant proof of L'Hospital's rule that I was
quite chuffed at.

Kevin Aylward

I liked your analysis of HF injection in tape recording. I am continually
amazed by:

a) how many things are amenable to simple analysis
b) how few "engineers" can actually perform said analyses....
c) how many engineer-turned-managers seem incapable of understanding simple
mathematical proofs.

cheers
Terry

Kevin Aylward · Jun 10, 2004

Terry Given wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9wYxc.3$N4.1@nurse.blueyonder.net...

Kevin Aylward

I liked your analysis of HF injection in tape recording.

Thanks.

I am
continually amazed by:

a) how many things are amenable to simple analysis
b) how few "engineers" can actually perform said analyses....

Having said that, making models of systems is still something that in
principle is not trivial. I was blown away when I first discovered that,
there was still debate prior to the Atlantic telephone line as to
whether or not the transmission line equation used was correct. After
the fact, the derivation of T Lines (RLGC) is pretty easy for anyone
with say, 2nd year year EE degree knowledge, but the first time people
were trying these techniques, it was not so obvious.

But I agree, that it is somewhat disconcerting that many with full 4
year EE degrees, are unable to do the most basic of small signal
equivalent circuits.

urned-managers seem incapable of understanding
simple mathematical proofs.

Indeed. Managers just can't seem to understand that it is impossible to
do tomorrows work, yesterday.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Subhajit Sen · Jun 10, 2004

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<1cVxc.563$s52.24961@news.xtra.co.nz>...

"Subhajit Sen" <sen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:67e24816.0406092308.6b3592ac@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots of
truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things that
would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached to them
as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons worth. The only
reason that certain names are attached to such trivial, obvious
circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being first to do
something is not, on its own, a measure of value.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I think whether electronics is on par with physics debate
somewhat boils down to the question of whether Art is
is on par with Science. Both Art and Science are Important
and Successful. Whether we like it or not, there
is no question that a lot of engineering judgements made
as to why we selected a particular circuit or architecture
boil down to intuition/guesswork/prior-experience etc.
that cannot be nailed down to logical arguments.

Its not particularly meaningful to compare the two - why stop there, why not
debate pottery vs euclidean geometry....

I do not see a fair comparison between Analog Design vs. Physics and
pottery-making vs. euclidean geometry. The former pair includes an
interplay
of classical and quantum physics(90 nm MOSFET gates offered by
state of the art fabs conduct current) with classical itself being
subdivided between domains of electro-statics/dynamics(Electrostatic
discharge(ESD), rf design, emi,rfi etc.),"EE", thermal and mechanical
engineering(bandgap voltages can change with strain in package) and
even some difficult applied mathematics("tones" in quantization noise
spectra of delta-sigma converters). Whereas the latter pair pretty
much involve just classical geometry. I.e. there is a
enormous,enormous difference in complexity between analog design(esp.
semiconductor microelectronics variety) & p.m.. However, I would
assert that both analog design and p.m. involve "artistic" creativity
and temperament.

But I certainly disagree strongly with your suggestion re. the "art" aspect.
Its precisely the fact that its NOT art, its just rigorously applied (often
fairly basic, usually classical) physics that makes analogue electronics so
much fun. The best analog designers I have met/corresponded with/read their
books are all very good "applied" classical physicists (listen to the
physicists complain about that). Read any decent text on analogue design,
and you pretty soon discover that its all just maxwells equations (even
thermal stuff . Good analog designers know this, and they know all the
approximations (lumped vs distributed elements etc) that are in common use,
and therefore when and where to apply them (or not).

I certainly agree that analog(ue) design can be fun. However,
haven't had too many opportunities to apply formulae of
classical physics directly in a design except for stuff like
calculating mosfet transconductances, coupling caps. , self/mutual
inductance in IC's and the like. It has mostly been taken care of
engineering
models like lumped R,C and Spice models of transistors. Whenever
the opportunities to apply Maxwell's equations arose e.g. in ESD in an
I/O
pad, the problem became so hopelessly difficult that it became the fun
job
of a specialist or a CAD/EDA tool designer and straight got out of my
hand.
This is not to even mention practical economic realities that my
embedded
PLL or A/D will be "re-used" in more than one layout/geometric
configuration
so that even if I could apply Maxwell's eqns.,I do not know the exact
boundary conditions to use, if I wanted to compute the noise injected
by the logic circuitry in the chip.

Would like to mention two good texts on analog IC design: (1) Gray &
Meyer
(2) Grebene. Don't see too many physics formulae in them.

the not-so-good analog designers never really know what is going on, and so
stuff like "RF" is this scary, magical so-called art. Good experience is
learning how relevant performance characteristics actually wind up in the
real world (eg hard-to-tune circuits that are highly sensitive to tolerance,
low or no noise margins etc).

obviously the detailed semiconductor physics is more complex than say
faradays law (oh yeah - try complex 3D geometry with nasty sharp corners ,
but again (all bar bleeding-edge research) is just physics, so can be
learned, understood and applied.

I gave the example of an embedded PLL,A/D or I/O pad with ESD pad
designed in Europe, done on TSMC fab(Taiwan) to be "re-used" by 2
different companies in US and Canada respectively.

The creativity involved is akin to artistic creativity
of humans esp. those who are handicapped/challenged.
The situation seems to be getting even more difficult
nowadays when analog designers(including those doing
IC/VLSI) are expected to design circuits working in
a very hostile digital environments of supply and substrate noise,
thermal gradients, emi,rfi etc. In a way successful
analog designers today are even greater than the "greats"
of the past(names like Widlar etc.).

IMO digital design is straightforward for good analog designers, who
immediately look at L,C, dI/dt, dV/dt, impedances, reflections,
crosstalk......although designing complex analogue circuits to work in the
presence of digital "mess" is of course complex (but still not "mysterious").

I don't think I used the work "mysterious" and take it back if I did.
Also disagree with the notion that digital design would be
"straightforward"
for analog designers. Its like saying swimming would be
straightforward
for gymnasts. Similarly, I don't think analog design would be
"straigtforward"
for physicists. Each of these professions require a fundamentally
different temperament for one to be successful in them. I don't see
how a Bob
Widlar could become a successful Ted Hoff(inventor of first
micropressor
Intel 4004).

Nevertheless, I would agree that a lot of well known circuits with
names appended to them: e.g. "Darlington pair", "Wilson" or "Widlar"
CS
appear to be trivial.(An analogy would be "Rolle's theorem" in
contrast with say "L'Hospital's rule" in any calculus book ).

The interesting question from an analog designer's perspective is,
is designing an 18-bit self-calibrated "embedded" A/D converter more
difficult/challenging(and more deserving of his time and energy)
than analog neural network that can do difficult computational
tasks with very low power?

I dunno about you, but I will design pretty much whatever I get paid to
design - cash is good.

Good for you! But perhaps not always good for others

.

I like power supplies

I like neural networks (tho' haven't had an opportunity to work on
them).

Regards,
Subhajit
(An analog designer)

Cheers
Terry

I would like to conclude with some remarks made by Chris Mangelsdorf
(Analog Devices designer) in ISSCC 2004 in which he said that there is
something "Wagnerian" about analog design in the panel discussion
on the relevance of analog design with the onslaught of digital.
Check the eetimes report on this in the press.

I think fundamentally we agree that analog design involves mostly
principles of physics, tho' my own take is that the practical
application
of these principles is so difficult, that only people with a certain
kind
of artistic creativity and imagination can be successful in it.

Best regards,
Subhajit Sen

Terry Given · Jun 10, 2004

Hi Subhajit,

"Subhajit Sen" <sen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:67e24816.0406101104.697d29@posting.google.com...

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<1cVxc.563$s52.24961@news.xtra.co.nz>...
"Subhajit Sen" <sen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:67e24816.0406092308.6b3592ac@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots
of
truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things
that
would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached to
them
as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons worth. The
only
reason that certain names are attached to such trivial, obvious
circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being first
to do
something is not, on its own, a measure of value.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I think whether electronics is on par with physics debate
somewhat boils down to the question of whether Art is
is on par with Science. Both Art and Science are Important
and Successful. Whether we like it or not, there
is no question that a lot of engineering judgements made
as to why we selected a particular circuit or architecture
boil down to intuition/guesswork/prior-experience etc.
that cannot be nailed down to logical arguments.

Its not particularly meaningful to compare the two - why stop there, why
not
debate pottery vs euclidean geometry....

I do not see a fair comparison between Analog Design vs. Physics and
pottery-making vs. euclidean geometry.

thats because its not a terribly fair comparison. But it is a good example
of art vs science. There is a great deal of science in pm, almost none of
which is understood by the artists who make the really cool stuff. its also
a smart-arse remark

The former pair includes an
interplay
of classical and quantum physics(90 nm MOSFET gates offered by
state of the art fabs conduct current) with classical itself being
subdivided between domains of electro-statics/dynamics(Electrostatic
discharge(ESD), rf design, emi,rfi etc.),"EE", thermal and mechanical
engineering(bandgap voltages can change with strain in package) and
even some difficult applied mathematics("tones" in quantization noise
spectra of delta-sigma converters). Whereas the latter pair pretty
much involve just classical geometry. I.e. there is a
enormous,enormous difference in complexity between analog design(esp.
semiconductor microelectronics variety) & p.m.. However, I would
assert that both analog design and p.m. involve "artistic" creativity
and temperament.

Fabulous argument! Thanks for taking the time to state your case so well

The basis of my (albeit cheeky) "point" is that the science is a
*pre-requisite* - art alone doesnt work very well. Many so-called
electronics designers have very little scientific knowledge - just read some
of the astonishingly stupid questions people ask in this forum (note: stuff
you know is easy. stuff you dont know is hard...). I have worked with many
so-called engineers (with or without tertiary qualifications) who just dont
understand the physics involved (although im not an expert in QM or
semiconductor physics, by any stretch of the imagination)

Part of what we are discussing here is our old friend semantics. I dont like
the term "artistic" - having been to many art galleries, I especially dont
like the association with modern artists (but damn those surrealists could
paint

. I think what we are talking about here are aspects like
creativity, inspiration and MIOA (IMHO) LATERAL THINKING. slavishly cranking
mathematical handles is very unlikely to lead to funky new designs, which
invariably involve the aforementioned aspects.

but without the detailed understanding of the relevant physics involved,
creativity etc. arent likely to get you very far - witness the reams of
drivel produced by idiots who try and tap into "free space energy" by adding
magnets to transformers - great for a laugh though.

a lot of what gets referred to as "art" (eg RF, EMC etc) is NOT art, merely
physics that is not understood by those making the reference.

But I certainly disagree strongly with your suggestion re. the "art"
aspect.
Its precisely the fact that its NOT art, its just rigorously applied
(often
fairly basic, usually classical) physics that makes analogue electronics
so
much fun. The best analog designers I have met/corresponded with/read
their
books are all very good "applied" classical physicists (listen to the
physicists complain about that). Read any decent text on analogue
design,
and you pretty soon discover that its all just maxwells equations (even
thermal stuff . Good analog designers know this, and they know all the
approximations (lumped vs distributed elements etc) that are in common
use,
and therefore when and where to apply them (or not).

I certainly agree that analog(ue) design can be fun. However,
haven't had too many opportunities to apply formulae of
classical physics directly in a design except for stuff like
calculating mosfet transconductances, coupling caps. , self/mutual
inductance in IC's and the like. It has mostly been taken care of
engineering
models like lumped R,C and Spice models of transistors. Whenever
the opportunities to apply Maxwell's equations arose e.g. in ESD in an
I/O
pad, the problem became so hopelessly difficult that it became the fun
job
of a specialist or a CAD/EDA tool designer and straight got out of my
hand.
This is not to even mention practical economic realities that my
embedded
PLL or A/D will be "re-used" in more than one layout/geometric
configuration
so that even if I could apply Maxwell's eqns.,I do not know the exact
boundary conditions to use, if I wanted to compute the noise injected
by the logic circuitry in the chip.

the "except for" bit is the fun bit

I work with power electronics, which is cool because stuff blows up, and of
course the physical geometry means basic physics is of paramount importance,
so I do a lot of inductance and capacitance calculations, thermal diffusion
etc. But I dont do ANY wafer-scale design work, so cant really comment on
whats involved their, other than to say the sim tools must be both very good
and very $$$

yes a lot of this stuff *is* embodied in spice models etc. maybe. lead
inductance? perhaps, better learn how spice works and read the models....I
got snapped years ago with a circuit straight out of an app note that didnt
work - due to reverse-breakdown of BE junctions, which werent in my spice
models. I found out when I built it and it didnt work like spice said...

I use my knowledge of physics to complement modelling tools - I look at the
physical geometry of a circuit, and calculate (or often simply estimate
upper and lower bounds of) stray inductance and capacitance thats likely to
occur, then go feed those back into my spice sims. I like to ask "what-if"
questions - how much L (or C) can that node tolerate before performance is
degraded etc.

OTOH those without a deep understanding (which doesnt have much to do with
education) of the relevant physics tend to blunder on unawares, creating
sims that work well and circuits that dont. which is how I make most of my
money

. pretty much all books on EMC say the same thing: analyse the
circuit you actually build, not the one you think
you built.

Actually I think that might be what Kevin was getting at - while the
individual details are often nasty to calculate (esp. analytically) its all
very well known. mind you, things like cavity resonances will stump most
so-called engineers (many of whom dont even realise that a lumped model is
an approximation).

partly thats just statistics though - normal distributions abound, in any
group of people most are clustered around average (ie mediocre) and small
numbers are either very good, or very bad. true for engineers, doctors,
drain-layers etc.

Would like to mention two good texts on analog IC design: (1) Gray &
Meyer
(2) Grebene. Don't see too many physics formulae in them.

have the former, not the latter - whats the title/isbn, got a review? (I
collect eng books)

G&M dont mention ohms law, either. they expect you already know this
stuff...

the not-so-good analog designers never really know what is going on, and
so
stuff like "RF" is this scary, magical so-called art. Good experience is
learning how relevant performance characteristics actually wind up in
the
real world (eg hard-to-tune circuits that are highly sensitive to
tolerance,
low or no noise margins etc).

obviously the detailed semiconductor physics is more complex than say
faradays law (oh yeah - try complex 3D geometry with nasty sharp corners
,
but again (all bar bleeding-edge research) is just physics, so can be
learned, understood and applied.

I gave the example of an embedded PLL,A/D or I/O pad with ESD pad
designed in Europe, done on TSMC fab(Taiwan) to be "re-used" by 2
different companies in US and Canada respectively.

all fairly well understood though. cf quantum cryptography, which is only
starting to make the transition from physics to engineering...

The creativity involved is akin to artistic creativity
of humans esp. those who are handicapped/challenged.
The situation seems to be getting even more difficult
nowadays when analog designers(including those doing
IC/VLSI) are expected to design circuits working in
a very hostile digital environments of supply and substrate noise,
thermal gradients, emi,rfi etc. In a way successful
analog designers today are even greater than the "greats"
of the past(names like Widlar etc.).

IMO digital design is straightforward for good analog designers, who
immediately look at L,C, dI/dt, dV/dt, impedances, reflections,
crosstalk......although designing complex analogue circuits to work in
the
presence of digital "mess" is of course complex (but still not
"mysterious").

I don't think I used the work "mysterious" and take it back if I did.
Also disagree with the notion that digital design would be
"straightforward"
for analog designers. Its like saying swimming would be
straightforward
for gymnasts. Similarly, I don't think analog design would be
"straigtforward"
for physicists. Each of these professions require a fundamentally
different temperament for one to be successful in them. I don't see
how a Bob
Widlar could become a successful Ted Hoff(inventor of first
micropressor
Intel 4004).

you didnt use that word, I did (sorry

. "art" implies mystery though -
artists tend to be unable to explain their actions. Engineers bloody well
better be able to explain it, lest they get their ears singed off at a peer
review - who cares about the inspiration, what physics enables it to WORK.

I do however think digital design is merely a subset of analogue design.
except when it turns into software, which IMO is not designed at all, merely
cobbled together at high speed by over-qualified typists. Now SW is *art* -
and bloody unreliable as a result - but its not the discussion we are having
so I wont rant any further....

digital design is interesting in that it is not (at a larger scale) based on
physics principles (ignore edge-related dynamics, meta-stability etc) -
consider state machines for example, or von Neumann architecture - no
classical or quantum physics hiding in there. there are correspondingly
large numbers of digital "designers" with no understanding at all of
electronics physics. which is fine when writing VHDL code, but tends to fall
down when the first signal leaves the chip.....

I do a lot more analogue than digital design, but have done a lot of DSP,
and use my analogue skills to great effect - spend a lot of time figuring
out what to do, rather than start typing.....then figure out how to *prove*
it works, stress-test it (eg throw junk data at it, watch it squirm) etc.
whilst I am not fluent in VHDL, I have yet to come across ANY element of
digital design that i cant handle with the toolset analogue has given me.
The converse is NOT generally true for those who live in the digital world -
a problem exacerbated by the fact that it is very cheap for universities to
churn out EEs who only ever simulate things and write code - low resource
requirements = high student numbers = more $$$

Nevertheless, I would agree that a lot of well known circuits with
names appended to them: e.g. "Darlington pair", "Wilson" or "Widlar"
CS
appear to be trivial.(An analogy would be "Rolle's theorem" in
contrast with say "L'Hospital's rule" in any calculus book ).

The interesting question from an analog designer's perspective is,
is designing an 18-bit self-calibrated "embedded" A/D converter more
difficult/challenging(and more deserving of his time and energy)
than analog neural network that can do difficult computational
tasks with very low power?

I dunno about you, but I will design pretty much whatever I get paid to
design - cash is good.

Good for you! But perhaps not always good for others .

I am a realist, and I like to think I have helped a number of companies who
have been stung by hiring idiots - if they know nothing about the field, its
not hard to convince them you are an expert.....Hell, I did some work a few
years ago for a company that wanted to make power supplies. Not one person
knew ANYTHING about electronics, yet they spent $millions of VC and designed
this thing that didnt go. I made it work, but the job turned into a
nightmare (they wanted me to then sort out their thermals, then mechanics,
then production line, all without increasing the funding - no way). I ended
up having a hush-hush meeting with the primary VC guy, and told him that he
was wasting his money on these guys, they would NEVER build a single working
unit, even after I gave them a full functioning prototype. He was very
grateful, and ended up pulling the plug (after wasting about $2,000,000).
Bad for the idiots, but they were in the process of crashing and burning
anyway. And if I ever need VC, well I now have a friend...

I like power supplies

I like neural networks (tho' haven't had an opportunity to work on
them).

Regards,
Subhajit
(An analog designer)

Cheers
Terry

I would like to conclude with some remarks made by Chris Mangelsdorf
(Analog Devices designer) in ISSCC 2004 in which he said that there is
something "Wagnerian" about analog design in the panel discussion
on the relevance of analog design with the onslaught of digital.
Check the eetimes report on this in the press.

I think fundamentally we agree that analog design involves mostly
principles of physics, tho' my own take is that the practical
application
of these principles is so difficult, that only people with a certain
kind
of artistic creativity and imagination can be successful in it.

estimate upper and lower bounds, then triage your problem: it is either

a) no problem at all
b) clearly a problem
c) in-between therefore examine it more closely/accurately

FEA is definitely the way to do complex things, the maths is just too hard
(and therefore too easy to screw up).

I guess I do agree with you (apart from the "a" word

, but think the
creativity etc has to be predicated on a solid theoretical background

Best regards,
Subhajit Sen

Cheers from Aotearoa, New Zealand
Terry

Subhajit Sen · Jun 14, 2004

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<d55yc.746$s52.31705@news.xtra.co.nz>...

Hi Subhajit,

"Subhajit Sen" <sen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:67e24816.0406101104.697d29@posting.google.com...
"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<1cVxc.563$s52.24961@news.xtra.co.nz>...
"Subhajit Sen" <sen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:67e24816.0406092308.6b3592ac@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots
of
truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things
that
would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached to
them
as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons worth. The
only
reason that certain names are attached to such trivial, obvious
circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being first
to do
something is not, on its own, a measure of value.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I think whether electronics is on par with physics debate
somewhat boils down to the question of whether Art is
is on par with Science. Both Art and Science are Important
and Successful. Whether we like it or not, there
is no question that a lot of engineering judgements made
as to why we selected a particular circuit or architecture
boil down to intuition/guesswork/prior-experience etc.
that cannot be nailed down to logical arguments.

Its not particularly meaningful to compare the two - why stop there, why
not
debate pottery vs euclidean geometry....

I do not see a fair comparison between Analog Design vs. Physics and
pottery-making vs. euclidean geometry.

thats because its not a terribly fair comparison. But it is a good example
of art vs science. There is a great deal of science in pm, almost none of
which is understood by the artists who make the really cool stuff. its also
a smart-arse remark

The former pair includes an
interplay
of classical and quantum physics(90 nm MOSFET gates offered by
state of the art fabs conduct current) with classical itself being
subdivided between domains of electro-statics/dynamics(Electrostatic
discharge(ESD), rf design, emi,rfi etc.),"EE", thermal and mechanical
engineering(bandgap voltages can change with strain in package) and
even some difficult applied mathematics("tones" in quantization noise
spectra of delta-sigma converters). Whereas the latter pair pretty
much involve just classical geometry. I.e. there is a
enormous,enormous difference in complexity between analog design(esp.
semiconductor microelectronics variety) & p.m.. However, I would
assert that both analog design and p.m. involve "artistic" creativity
and temperament.

Fabulous argument! Thanks for taking the time to state your case so well

Thanks.

The basis of my (albeit cheeky) "point" is that the science is a
*pre-requisite* - art alone doesnt work very well. Many so-called
electronics designers have very little scientific knowledge - just read some
of the astonishingly stupid questions people ask in this forum (note: stuff
you know is easy. stuff you dont know is hard...). I have worked with many
so-called engineers (with or without tertiary qualifications) who just dont
understand the physics involved (although im not an expert in QM or
semiconductor physics, by any stretch of the imagination)

Part of what we are discussing here is our old friend semantics. I dont like
the term "artistic" - having been to many art galleries, I especially dont
like the association with modern artists (but damn those surrealists could
paint . I think what we are talking about here are aspects like
creativity, inspiration and MIOA (IMHO) LATERAL THINKING. slavishly cranking
mathematical handles is very unlikely to lead to funky new designs, which
invariably involve the aforementioned aspects.

but without the detailed understanding of the relevant physics involved,
creativity etc. arent likely to get you very far - witness the reams of
drivel produced by idiots who try and tap into "free space energy" by adding
magnets to transformers - great for a laugh though.

a lot of what gets referred to as "art" (eg RF, EMC etc) is NOT art, merely
physics that is not understood by those making the reference.

But I certainly disagree strongly with your suggestion re. the "art"
aspect.
Its precisely the fact that its NOT art, its just rigorously applied
(often
fairly basic, usually classical) physics that makes analogue electronics
so
much fun. The best analog designers I have met/corresponded with/read
their
books are all very good "applied" classical physicists (listen to the
physicists complain about that). Read any decent text on analogue
design,
and you pretty soon discover that its all just maxwells equations (even
thermal stuff . Good analog designers know this, and they know all the
approximations (lumped vs distributed elements etc) that are in common
use,
and therefore when and where to apply them (or not).

I certainly agree that analog(ue) design can be fun. However,
haven't had too many opportunities to apply formulae of
classical physics directly in a design except for stuff like
calculating mosfet transconductances, coupling caps. , self/mutual
inductance in IC's and the like. It has mostly been taken care of
engineering
models like lumped R,C and Spice models of transistors. Whenever
the opportunities to apply Maxwell's equations arose e.g. in ESD in an
I/O
pad, the problem became so hopelessly difficult that it became the fun
job
of a specialist or a CAD/EDA tool designer and straight got out of my
hand.
This is not to even mention practical economic realities that my
embedded
PLL or A/D will be "re-used" in more than one layout/geometric
configuration
so that even if I could apply Maxwell's eqns.,I do not know the exact
boundary conditions to use, if I wanted to compute the noise injected
by the logic circuitry in the chip.

the "except for" bit is the fun bit

I wish I could do more to apply more fundamental knowledge
i.e. physics. The reason for this is driven as much from economics
as from from "scientific aesthetics". I do not wish to spend too
much on $$$ expensive EDA/CAD tools except perhaps for a good
version of Spice.

I work with power electronics, which is cool because stuff blows up, and of
course the physical geometry means basic physics is of paramount importance,
so I do a lot of inductance and capacitance calculations, thermal diffusion
etc. But I dont do ANY wafer-scale design work, so cant really comment on
whats involved their, other than to say the sim tools must be both very good
and very $$$

There seems to be an increasing amount of "power electronics" within
IC's too esp. with the need to reduce/optimize power and many of the concepts
are are borrowed from box/board level power electronics.
I am sure there are opportunities for applying your knowledge
and experience in these. One "cool" design I have seen recently is
a regulator that extracts RF power from coils surrounding the chip
and using it to power the on-chip circuitry. The RF signals
also contain modulated data.

yes a lot of this stuff *is* embodied in spice models etc. maybe. lead
inductance? perhaps, better learn how spice works and read the models....I
got snapped years ago with a circuit straight out of an app note that didnt
work - due to reverse-breakdown of BE junctions, which werent in my spice
models. I found out when I built it and it didnt work like spice said...

I use my knowledge of physics to complement modelling tools - I look at the
physical geometry of a circuit, and calculate (or often simply estimate
upper and lower bounds of) stray inductance and capacitance thats likely to
occur, then go feed those back into my spice sims. I like to ask "what-if"
questions - how much L (or C) can that node tolerate before performance is
degraded etc.

OTOH those without a deep understanding (which doesnt have much to do with
education) of the relevant physics tend to blunder on unawares, creating
sims that work well and circuits that dont. which is how I make most of my
money . pretty much all books on EMC say the same thing: analyse the
circuit you actually build, not the one you think
you built.

Actually I think that might be what Kevin was getting at - while the
individual details are often nasty to calculate (esp. analytically) its all
very well known. mind you, things like cavity resonances will stump most
so-called engineers (many of whom dont even realise that a lumped model is
an approximation).

partly thats just statistics though - normal distributions abound, in any
group of people most are clustered around average (ie mediocre) and small
numbers are either very good, or very bad. true for engineers, doctors,
drain-layers etc.

Would like to mention two good texts on analog IC design: (1) Gray &
Meyer
(2) Grebene. Don't see too many physics formulae in them.
Sorry it is:

"Analog Integrated Circuit Design"
Alan B. Grebene
1972, Litton Educational Publishing
ISBN: 0-442-22827-9

I also personally like Roubik Gregorian's "Intro. to CMOS Op-amps"(Wiley)
ISBN 0-471-31778-0, for CMOS analog design.

have the former, not the latter - whats the title/isbn, got a review? (I
collect eng books)

G&M dont mention ohms law, either. they expect you already know this
stuff...

the not-so-good analog designers never really know what is going on, and
so
stuff like "RF" is this scary, magical so-called art. Good experience is
learning how relevant performance characteristics actually wind up in
the
real world (eg hard-to-tune circuits that are highly sensitive to
tolerance,
low or no noise margins etc).

obviously the detailed semiconductor physics is more complex than say
faradays law (oh yeah - try complex 3D geometry with nasty sharp corners
),
but again (all bar bleeding-edge research) is just physics, so can be
learned, understood and applied.

I gave the example of an embedded PLL,A/D or I/O pad with ESD pad
designed in Europe, done on TSMC fab(Taiwan) to be "re-used" by 2
different companies in US and Canada respectively.

all fairly well understood though. cf quantum cryptography, which is only
starting to make the transition from physics to engineering...

The creativity involved is akin to artistic creativity
of humans esp. those who are handicapped/challenged.
The situation seems to be getting even more difficult
nowadays when analog designers(including those doing
IC/VLSI) are expected to design circuits working in
a very hostile digital environments of supply and substrate noise,
thermal gradients, emi,rfi etc. In a way successful
analog designers today are even greater than the "greats"
of the past(names like Widlar etc.).

IMO digital design is straightforward for good analog designers, who
immediately look at L,C, dI/dt, dV/dt, impedances, reflections,
crosstalk......although designing complex analogue circuits to work in
the
presence of digital "mess" is of course complex (but still not
"mysterious").

I don't think I used the work "mysterious" and take it back if I did.
Also disagree with the notion that digital design would be
"straightforward"
for analog designers. Its like saying swimming would be
straightforward
for gymnasts. Similarly, I don't think analog design would be
"straigtforward"
for physicists. Each of these professions require a fundamentally
different temperament for one to be successful in them. I don't see
how a Bob
Widlar could become a successful Ted Hoff(inventor of first
micropressor
Intel 4004).

you didnt use that word, I did (sorry . "art" implies mystery though -
artists tend to be unable to explain their actions. Engineers bloody well
better be able to explain it, lest they get their ears singed off at a peer
review - who cares about the inspiration, what physics enables it to WORK.

I do however think digital design is merely a subset of analogue design.
except when it turns into software, which IMO is not designed at all, merely
cobbled together at high speed by over-qualified typists. Now SW is *art* -
and bloody unreliable as a result - but its not the discussion we are having
so I wont rant any further....

digital design is interesting in that it is not (at a larger scale) based on
physics principles (ignore edge-related dynamics, meta-stability etc) -
consider state machines for example, or von Neumann architecture - no
classical or quantum physics hiding in there. there are correspondingly
large numbers of digital "designers" with no understanding at all of
electronics physics. which is fine when writing VHDL code, but tends to fall
down when the first signal leaves the chip.....

Digital (IC) design is now the domain of computer scientists and there
is very little "EE" content. Wonder why EE depts. put up parallel
courses on digital design when computer science depts. could teach
them better. Perhaps the reason is digital chip designers will
still need analog skills of the highest order to do the physical
design( implement the state of the art PLL's and I/O's circuits).

I do a lot more analogue than digital design, but have done a lot of DSP,
and use my analogue skills to great effect - spend a lot of time figuring
out what to do, rather than start typing.....then figure out how to *prove*
it works, stress-test it (eg throw junk data at it, watch it squirm) etc.
whilst I am not fluent in VHDL, I have yet to come across ANY element of
digital design that i cant handle with the toolset analogue has given me.
The converse is NOT generally true for those who live in the digital world -
a problem exacerbated by the fact that it is very cheap for universities to
churn out EEs who only ever simulate things and write code - low resource
requirements = high student numbers = more $$$

Nevertheless, I would agree that a lot of well known circuits with
names appended to them: e.g. "Darlington pair", "Wilson" or "Widlar"
CS
appear to be trivial.(An analogy would be "Rolle's theorem" in
contrast with say "L'Hospital's rule" in any calculus book ).

The interesting question from an analog designer's perspective is,
is designing an 18-bit self-calibrated "embedded" A/D converter more
difficult/challenging(and more deserving of his time and energy)
than analog neural network that can do difficult computational
tasks with very low power?

I dunno about you, but I will design pretty much whatever I get paid to
design - cash is good.

Good for you! But perhaps not always good for others .

I am a realist, and I like to think I have helped a number of companies who
have been stung by hiring idiots - if they know nothing about the field, its
not hard to convince them you are an expert.....Hell, I did some work a few
years ago for a company that wanted to make power supplies. Not one person
knew ANYTHING about electronics, yet they spent $millions of VC and designed
this thing that didnt go. I made it work, but the job turned into a
nightmare (they wanted me to then sort out their thermals, then mechanics,
then production line, all without increasing the funding - no way). I ended
up having a hush-hush meeting with the primary VC guy, and told him that he
was wasting his money on these guys, they would NEVER build a single working
unit, even after I gave them a full functioning prototype. He was very
grateful, and ended up pulling the plug (after wasting about $2,000,000).
Bad for the idiots, but they were in the process of crashing and burning
anyway. And if I ever need VC, well I now have a friend...

I like power supplies

I like neural networks (tho' haven't had an opportunity to work on
them).

Regards,
Subhajit
(An analog designer)

Cheers
Terry

I would like to conclude with some remarks made by Chris Mangelsdorf
(Analog Devices designer) in ISSCC 2004 in which he said that there is
something "Wagnerian" about analog design in the panel discussion
on the relevance of analog design with the onslaught of digital.
Check the eetimes report on this in the press.

I think fundamentally we agree that analog design involves mostly
principles of physics, tho' my own take is that the practical
application
of these principles is so difficult, that only people with a certain
kind
of artistic creativity and imagination can be successful in it.

estimate upper and lower bounds, then triage your problem: it is either

a) no problem at all
b) clearly a problem
c) in-between therefore examine it more closely/accurately

FEA is definitely the way to do complex things, the maths is just too hard
(and therefore too easy to screw up).

I guess I do agree with you (apart from the "a" word , but think the
creativity etc has to be predicated on a solid theoretical background

Best regards,
Subhajit Sen

Cheers from Aotearoa, New Zealand
Terry

My last comment is more philosophical(and controversial).
More than pianists, "sitar" players, "martial art" practitioners etc.,
analog designers need a "guru"(teacher, mentor etc.) who
serve as a role-model and inspiration throughout his career.

Thanks for the opportunity for a nice discussion.

Regards,
Subhajit
initiation.

Terry Given · Jun 14, 2004

Hi Subhajit,

"Subhajit Sen" <sen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:67e24816.0406132332.502cc92c@posting.google.com...

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<d55yc.746$s52.31705@news.xtra.co.nz>...
Hi Subhajit,

"Subhajit Sen" <sen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:67e24816.0406101104.697d29@posting.google.com...
"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<1cVxc.563$s52.24961@news.xtra.co.nz>...
"Subhajit Sen" <sen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:67e24816.0406092308.6b3592ac@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:<LgAvc.7036$wd7.1279@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the
technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are
lots
of
truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things
that
would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached
to
them
as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons worth.
The
only
reason that certain names are attached to such trivial, obvious
circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being
first
to do
something is not, on its own, a measure of value.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I think whether electronics is on par with physics debate
somewhat boils down to the question of whether Art is
is on par with Science. Both Art and Science are Important
and Successful. Whether we like it or not, there
is no question that a lot of engineering judgements made
as to why we selected a particular circuit or architecture
boil down to intuition/guesswork/prior-experience etc.
that cannot be nailed down to logical arguments.

Its not particularly meaningful to compare the two - why stop there,
why
not
debate pottery vs euclidean geometry....

I do not see a fair comparison between Analog Design vs. Physics and
pottery-making vs. euclidean geometry.

thats because its not a terribly fair comparison. But it is a good
example
of art vs science. There is a great deal of science in pm, almost none
of
which is understood by the artists who make the really cool stuff. its
also
a smart-arse remark

The former pair includes an
interplay
of classical and quantum physics(90 nm MOSFET gates offered by
state of the art fabs conduct current) with classical itself being
subdivided between domains of electro-statics/dynamics(Electrostatic
discharge(ESD), rf design, emi,rfi etc.),"EE", thermal and mechanical
engineering(bandgap voltages can change with strain in package) and
even some difficult applied mathematics("tones" in quantization noise
spectra of delta-sigma converters). Whereas the latter pair pretty
much involve just classical geometry. I.e. there is a
enormous,enormous difference in complexity between analog design(esp.
semiconductor microelectronics variety) & p.m.. However, I would
assert that both analog design and p.m. involve "artistic" creativity
and temperament.

Fabulous argument! Thanks for taking the time to state your case so well

Thanks.

The basis of my (albeit cheeky) "point" is that the science is a
*pre-requisite* - art alone doesnt work very well. Many so-called
electronics designers have very little scientific knowledge - just read
some
of the astonishingly stupid questions people ask in this forum (note:
stuff
you know is easy. stuff you dont know is hard...). I have worked with
many
so-called engineers (with or without tertiary qualifications) who just
dont
understand the physics involved (although im not an expert in QM or
semiconductor physics, by any stretch of the imagination)

Part of what we are discussing here is our old friend semantics. I dont
like
the term "artistic" - having been to many art galleries, I especially
dont
like the association with modern artists (but damn those surrealists
could
paint . I think what we are talking about here are aspects like
creativity, inspiration and MIOA (IMHO) LATERAL THINKING. slavishly
cranking
mathematical handles is very unlikely to lead to funky new designs,
which
invariably involve the aforementioned aspects.

but without the detailed understanding of the relevant physics involved,
creativity etc. arent likely to get you very far - witness the reams of
drivel produced by idiots who try and tap into "free space energy" by
adding
magnets to transformers - great for a laugh though.

a lot of what gets referred to as "art" (eg RF, EMC etc) is NOT art,
merely
physics that is not understood by those making the reference.

But I certainly disagree strongly with your suggestion re. the "art"
aspect.
Its precisely the fact that its NOT art, its just rigorously applied
(often
fairly basic, usually classical) physics that makes analogue
electronics
so
much fun. The best analog designers I have met/corresponded
with/read
their
books are all very good "applied" classical physicists (listen to
the
physicists complain about that). Read any decent text on analogue
design,
and you pretty soon discover that its all just maxwells equations
(even
thermal stuff . Good analog designers know this, and they know all
the
approximations (lumped vs distributed elements etc) that are in
common
use,
and therefore when and where to apply them (or not).

I certainly agree that analog(ue) design can be fun. However,
haven't had too many opportunities to apply formulae of
classical physics directly in a design except for stuff like
calculating mosfet transconductances, coupling caps. , self/mutual
inductance in IC's and the like. It has mostly been taken care of
engineering
models like lumped R,C and Spice models of transistors. Whenever
the opportunities to apply Maxwell's equations arose e.g. in ESD in an
I/O
pad, the problem became so hopelessly difficult that it became the fun
job
of a specialist or a CAD/EDA tool designer and straight got out of my
hand.
This is not to even mention practical economic realities that my
embedded
PLL or A/D will be "re-used" in more than one layout/geometric
configuration
so that even if I could apply Maxwell's eqns.,I do not know the exact
boundary conditions to use, if I wanted to compute the noise injected
by the logic circuitry in the chip.

the "except for" bit is the fun bit

I wish I could do more to apply more fundamental knowledge
i.e. physics. The reason for this is driven as much from economics
as from from "scientific aesthetics". I do not wish to spend too
much on $$$ expensive EDA/CAD tools except perhaps for a good
version of Spice.

I use simetrix, and I am very happy with it. It could be better, but the
price is right, and it has a lot of handy features for parameter stepping
and the like.

I work with power electronics, which is cool because stuff blows up, and
of
course the physical geometry means basic physics is of paramount
importance,
so I do a lot of inductance and capacitance calculations, thermal
diffusion
etc. But I dont do ANY wafer-scale design work, so cant really comment
on
whats involved their, other than to say the sim tools must be both very
good
and very $$$

There seems to be an increasing amount of "power electronics" within
IC's too esp. with the need to reduce/optimize power and many of the
concepts
are are borrowed from box/board level power electronics.
I am sure there are opportunities for applying your knowledge
and experience in these. One "cool" design I have seen recently is
a regulator that extracts RF power from coils surrounding the chip
and using it to power the on-chip circuitry. The RF signals
also contain modulated data.

now thats cool. I read an article the other day that pointed out in a few
years moores law will ensure chips have power densities approaching the
surface of the sun.....thermal engineering is becoming a show-stopper. All
sorts of funky technologies like closed-cycle evaporating coolers etc.

yes a lot of this stuff *is* embodied in spice models etc. maybe. lead
inductance? perhaps, better learn how spice works and read the
models....I
got snapped years ago with a circuit straight out of an app note that
didnt
work - due to reverse-breakdown of BE junctions, which werent in my
spice
models. I found out when I built it and it didnt work like spice said...

I use my knowledge of physics to complement modelling tools - I look at
the
physical geometry of a circuit, and calculate (or often simply estimate
upper and lower bounds of) stray inductance and capacitance thats likely
to
occur, then go feed those back into my spice sims. I like to ask
"what-if"
questions - how much L (or C) can that node tolerate before performance
is
degraded etc.

OTOH those without a deep understanding (which doesnt have much to do
with
education) of the relevant physics tend to blunder on unawares, creating
sims that work well and circuits that dont. which is how I make most of
my
money . pretty much all books on EMC say the same thing: analyse the
circuit you actually build, not the one you think
you built.

Actually I think that might be what Kevin was getting at - while the
individual details are often nasty to calculate (esp. analytically) its
all
very well known. mind you, things like cavity resonances will stump most
so-called engineers (many of whom dont even realise that a lumped model
is
an approximation).

partly thats just statistics though - normal distributions abound, in
any
group of people most are clustered around average (ie mediocre) and
small
numbers are either very good, or very bad. true for engineers, doctors,
drain-layers etc.

Would like to mention two good texts on analog IC design: (1) Gray &
Meyer
(2) Grebene. Don't see too many physics formulae in them.
Sorry it is:
"Analog Integrated Circuit Design"
Alan B. Grebene
1972, Litton Educational Publishing
ISBN: 0-442-22827-9

I also personally like Roubik Gregorian's "Intro. to CMOS Op-amps"(Wiley)
ISBN 0-471-31778-0, for CMOS analog design.

thanx, added to my list of books to keep an eye out for

have the former, not the latter - whats the title/isbn, got a review? (I
collect eng books)

G&M dont mention ohms law, either. they expect you already know this
stuff...

the not-so-good analog designers never really know what is going on,
and
so
stuff like "RF" is this scary, magical so-called art. Good
experience is
learning how relevant performance characteristics actually wind up
in
the
real world (eg hard-to-tune circuits that are highly sensitive to
tolerance,
low or no noise margins etc).

obviously the detailed semiconductor physics is more complex than
say
faradays law (oh yeah - try complex 3D geometry with nasty sharp
corners
),
but again (all bar bleeding-edge research) is just physics, so can
be
learned, understood and applied.

I gave the example of an embedded PLL,A/D or I/O pad with ESD pad
designed in Europe, done on TSMC fab(Taiwan) to be "re-used" by 2
different companies in US and Canada respectively.

all fairly well understood though. cf quantum cryptography, which is
only
starting to make the transition from physics to engineering...

The creativity involved is akin to artistic creativity
of humans esp. those who are handicapped/challenged.
The situation seems to be getting even more difficult
nowadays when analog designers(including those doing
IC/VLSI) are expected to design circuits working in
a very hostile digital environments of supply and substrate
noise,
thermal gradients, emi,rfi etc. In a way successful
analog designers today are even greater than the "greats"
of the past(names like Widlar etc.).

IMO digital design is straightforward for good analog designers, who
immediately look at L,C, dI/dt, dV/dt, impedances, reflections,
crosstalk......although designing complex analogue circuits to work
in
the
presence of digital "mess" is of course complex (but still not
"mysterious").

I don't think I used the work "mysterious" and take it back if I did.
Also disagree with the notion that digital design would be
"straightforward"
for analog designers. Its like saying swimming would be
straightforward
for gymnasts. Similarly, I don't think analog design would be
"straigtforward"
for physicists. Each of these professions require a fundamentally
different temperament for one to be successful in them. I don't see
how a Bob
Widlar could become a successful Ted Hoff(inventor of first
micropressor
Intel 4004).

you didnt use that word, I did (sorry . "art" implies mystery though -
artists tend to be unable to explain their actions. Engineers bloody
well
better be able to explain it, lest they get their ears singed off at a
peer
review - who cares about the inspiration, what physics enables it to
WORK.

I do however think digital design is merely a subset of analogue design.
except when it turns into software, which IMO is not designed at all,
merely
cobbled together at high speed by over-qualified typists. Now SW is
*art* -
and bloody unreliable as a result - but its not the discussion we are
having
so I wont rant any further....

digital design is interesting in that it is not (at a larger scale)
based on
physics principles (ignore edge-related dynamics, meta-stability etc) -
consider state machines for example, or von Neumann architecture - no
classical or quantum physics hiding in there. there are correspondingly
large numbers of digital "designers" with no understanding at all of
electronics physics. which is fine when writing VHDL code, but tends to
fall
down when the first signal leaves the chip.....

Digital (IC) design is now the domain of computer scientists and there
is very little "EE" content. Wonder why EE depts. put up parallel
courses on digital design when computer science depts. could teach
them better. Perhaps the reason is digital chip designers will
still need analog skills of the highest order to do the physical
design( implement the state of the art PLL's and I/O's circuits).

yeah, VHDL made life a lot easier. I picked power supplies to try and make
my career a little less self-obsoleting. Power distribution infrastructure
changes very slowly, so I am likely to have work for a long time, without
needing to constantly study the latest man-made-mess (god, imagine being a
windows programmer - not thanx!). Besides, far more programmers/digital
"designers" are churned out of universities than EEs, so even more job
security

I do a lot more analogue than digital design, but have done a lot of
DSP,
and use my analogue skills to great effect - spend a lot of time
figuring
out what to do, rather than start typing.....then figure out how to
*prove*
it works, stress-test it (eg throw junk data at it, watch it squirm)
etc.
whilst I am not fluent in VHDL, I have yet to come across ANY element of
digital design that i cant handle with the toolset analogue has given
me.
The converse is NOT generally true for those who live in the digital
world -
a problem exacerbated by the fact that it is very cheap for universities
to
churn out EEs who only ever simulate things and write code - low
resource
requirements = high student numbers = more $$$

Nevertheless, I would agree that a lot of well known circuits with
names appended to them: e.g. "Darlington pair", "Wilson" or
"Widlar"
CS
appear to be trivial.(An analogy would be "Rolle's theorem" in
contrast with say "L'Hospital's rule" in any calculus book ).

The interesting question from an analog designer's perspective is,
is designing an 18-bit self-calibrated "embedded" A/D converter
more
difficult/challenging(and more deserving of his time and energy)
than analog neural network that can do difficult computational
tasks with very low power?

I dunno about you, but I will design pretty much whatever I get paid
to
design - cash is good.

Good for you! But perhaps not always good for others .

I am a realist, and I like to think I have helped a number of companies
who
have been stung by hiring idiots - if they know nothing about the field,
its
not hard to convince them you are an expert.....Hell, I did some work a
few
years ago for a company that wanted to make power supplies. Not one
person
knew ANYTHING about electronics, yet they spent $millions of VC and
designed
this thing that didnt go. I made it work, but the job turned into a
nightmare (they wanted me to then sort out their thermals, then
mechanics,
then production line, all without increasing the funding - no way). I
ended
up having a hush-hush meeting with the primary VC guy, and told him that
he
was wasting his money on these guys, they would NEVER build a single
working
unit, even after I gave them a full functioning prototype. He was very
grateful, and ended up pulling the plug (after wasting about
$2,000,000).
Bad for the idiots, but they were in the process of crashing and burning
anyway. And if I ever need VC, well I now have a friend...

I like power supplies

I like neural networks (tho' haven't had an opportunity to work on
them).

Regards,
Subhajit
(An analog designer)

Cheers
Terry

I would like to conclude with some remarks made by Chris Mangelsdorf
(Analog Devices designer) in ISSCC 2004 in which he said that there is
something "Wagnerian" about analog design in the panel discussion
on the relevance of analog design with the onslaught of digital.
Check the eetimes report on this in the press.

I think fundamentally we agree that analog design involves mostly
principles of physics, tho' my own take is that the practical
application
of these principles is so difficult, that only people with a certain
kind
of artistic creativity and imagination can be successful in it.

estimate upper and lower bounds, then triage your problem: it is either

a) no problem at all
b) clearly a problem
c) in-between therefore examine it more closely/accurately

FEA is definitely the way to do complex things, the maths is just too
hard
(and therefore too easy to screw up).

I guess I do agree with you (apart from the "a" word , but think the
creativity etc has to be predicated on a solid theoretical background

Best regards,
Subhajit Sen

Cheers from Aotearoa, New Zealand
Terry

My last comment is more philosophical(and controversial).
More than pianists, "sitar" players, "martial art" practitioners etc.,
analog designers need a "guru"(teacher, mentor etc.) who
serve as a role-model and inspiration throughout his career.

Thanks for the opportunity for a nice discussion.

Regards,

I was very fortunate that my first *real* job was designing huge (1kW - 1MW)
AC motor controllers. I worked with a small team of extremely competent
engineers, and learned more in 3 months than all 4 years of my degree. After
I had been there for 6 months the "gurus" all quit, leaving me the 3rd-most
senior engineer, and the only smps designer. I worked my ass off for about 2
years, learning a huge amount - in addition to new designs I also had to
support the entire existing product range - whereupon I started to discover
mistakes made by my "gurus" - very important that step was, it started me
learning that EVERYONE makes mistakes, and a smart engineer plans for it

.
I am thankful for all the screw-ups I have been involved with (more so the
ones that werent my fault

as they taught me so much.

cheers
Terry

Roy · Jun 14, 2004

Hi Terry,

Just wanted to know what part of NZ

*************************************************
Roy Hopkins

Tauranga
New Zealand
*************************************************

I was very fortunate that my first *real* job was designing huge (1kW -
1MW)
AC motor controllers. I worked with a small team of extremely competent
engineers, and learned more in 3 months than all 4 years of my degree.
After
I had been there for 6 months the "gurus" all quit, leaving me the
3rd-most
senior engineer, and the only smps designer. I worked my ass off for about
2
years, learning a huge amount - in addition to new designs I also had to
support the entire existing product range - whereupon I started to
discover
mistakes made by my "gurus" - very important that step was, it started me
learning that EVERYONE makes mistakes, and a smart engineer plans for it
.
I am thankful for all the screw-ups I have been involved with (more so the
ones that werent my fault as they taught me so much.

cheers
Terry

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.706 / Virus Database: 462 - Release Date: 14/06/2004

Terry Given · Jun 14, 2004

"Roy" <rdhopkins@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:caksq8$4vk$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Hi Terry,

Just wanted to know what part of NZ

*************************************************
Roy Hopkins

Tauranga
New Zealand
*************************************************

just over the hill

Terry Given
Domes Engineering
109 Centennial Avenue
Te Aroha
New Zealand
ph +64 7 8844 596 (voicemail)
cell +64 21 422 400 (no voicemail)
terry_given@ieee.org

Hans Camenzind's (free, downloadable) Book

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Subhajit Sen

Guest

Terry Given

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Terry Given

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Subhajit Sen

Guest

Terry Given

Guest

Subhajit Sen

Guest

Terry Given

Guest

Roy

Guest

Terry Given

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor