"Mike Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices"

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 6:45:53 PM UTC+11, buec...@gmail.com wrote:

Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

Perhaps not, but John Larkin was boosting the claim that "Intuition is the most important part of engineering."

> There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to start.

You'd have to be entirely bereft of judgment to try them one by one in random order.

> Good intuition and experience 'might' make me choose the right one at the start off.

Since all of us have chosen the wrong one from time to time, and had to back off an start over, it would seem that intuition and judgement aren't entirely reliable tools.

Promoting an aspect of the job that doesn't work out all that reliably as the most important part of the process isn't an exhibition of sound judgement.

> And then, combine that with good engineering and simulation and soldering and ....

So which aspect strikes you as the "most important part of the process"?

Intuition is just unorgansied experience. The difference between art and engineering is that we try to rationalise what we are seeing, so that we can tell other people how to do it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On 11 Mar 2020 06:28:32 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote...

There are other ways of predicting what a circuit will do,
and you can - in principle - create you own Spice models of
parts which better reflect what they do in the circumstances
in which you wish to use them.

I like to make small SPICE models of parts, derived from
analytical expressions of a few critical things that're
going on in the aspect of the circuit I'm evaluating.

For example, consider an op-amp driving a power MOSFET to
create a controlled current source. The FET's high gate
capacitance, along with the bootstrapped source resistor,
creates a confusing control loop. My RIS-796, a 250-amp
LED pulser project, uses this. If you want, sets of files:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tcmiahzzughadfk/AABtgFDy01cuTDWDRjujP6jva?dl=1

In AoE x-Chapter 4x.26, we struggled and derived a set of
analytical equations for this circuit. See article here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o4g4mhzl70rsi9t/4x.26_MOSFET_CS_nodal-analysis_final.pdf?
dl=1

The circuit basis for the equations uses the MOSFET's gm,
equation id = gm (vg-vs), and its gate capacitance, Ciss.
The equations are hairy. But we also suggest you can make
a simple SPICE circuit with the op-amp, the FET's id and
Ciss, plus additional Rs and Cs, to evaluate the circuit.

Such a scheme may only works well over a limited range of
conditions, e.g., using the value for gm at the FET's 250A
current, means that the reduced-current startup won't be
accurately modeled. But it's still quick and useful. And
you can repeat the SPICE run, with lower values of gm, to
get an idea of what's happening during the pulse startup.

Nearly all interesting systems are nonlinear, and analytic equations
are hard or impossible for nonlinear systems.

So the math becomes guidance, suggestions or starting points for
simulation or experiment.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:0092411a-a71f-4805-84cf-9c8b1a2bf5bd@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 7:10:45 PM UTC+11,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
buecherk@gmail.com wrote in
news:22bc8f63-d755-4b3d-830f-6eeadee6b608@googlegroups.com:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If you
rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try them
one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for hours, do
analysis and calculations, to determine where to start.

Good intuition and experience 'might' make me choose the right
one at the startoff. And then, combine that with good
engineering and simulation and soldering and ....

Yes. Many inventions are not new, but are variations on
previous
themes.

Less than obvious variations - "not obvious to those skilled in
the art".

Everything is one step at a time, but even though we know so
very
well how to walk, we still do not venture forth blindfolded.

If you don't think about what you think you know, and haven't got
a clear idea of why you think that, you are working in the dark.

Good job of being too stupid to know that what I said was that it
takes "A bit of both".

<https://youtu.be/TRvlKEvoQEI?t=16>

 

[Winfield Hill]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

On 11 Mar 2020 06:28:32 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote...

There are other ways of predicting what a circuit will do,
and you can - in principle - create you own Spice models of
parts which better reflect what they do in the circumstances
in which you wish to use them.

I like to make small SPICE models of parts, derived from
analytical expressions of a few critical things that're
going on in the aspect of the circuit I'm evaluating.

For example, consider an op-amp driving a power MOSFET to
create a controlled current source. The FET's high gate
capacitance, along with the bootstrapped source resistor,
creates a confusing control loop. My RIS-796, a 250-amp
LED pulser project, uses this. If you want, sets of files:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tcmiahzzughadfk/AABtgFDy01cuTDWDRjujP6jva?dl=1

In AoE x-Chapter 4x.26, we struggled and derived a set of
analytical equations for this circuit. See article here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o4g4mhzl70rsi9t/4x.26_MOSFET_CS_nodal-
analysis_final.pdf?
dl=1

The circuit basis for the equations uses the MOSFET's gm,
equation id = gm (vg-vs), and its gate capacitance, Ciss.
The equations are hairy. But we also suggest you can make
a simple SPICE circuit with the op-amp, the FET's id and
Ciss, plus additional Rs and Cs, to evaluate the circuit.

Such a scheme may only works well over a limited range of
conditions, e.g., using the value for gm at the FET's 250A
current, means that the reduced-current startup won't be
accurately modeled. But it's still quick and useful. And
you can repeat the SPICE run, with lower values of gm, to
get an idea of what's happening during the pulse startup.

Nearly all interesting systems are nonlinear, and analytic
equations are hard or impossible for nonlinear systems.

So the math becomes guidance, suggestions or starting
points for simulation or experiment.

In the case of an op-amp driving a FET, at low currents the
circuit will be slower, OK, but the pulse quickly moves past
that to the high current. So making sure the loop is stable
at high currents, and checking response is most of the game.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 12:00:07 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 7:30:24 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

---------------------

Bill Sloman is Totally Weird wrote:

---------------------------------


"Intuition is the most important part of engineering."

That's great.

It's actually insane,


** What an absurd claim.

Makes it very clear that Bill has none so has no clue what it is - apart from reading a dictionary.


One of Jim Williams' books has a great chapter by Barrie Gilbert,
"Where do little circuits come from?"

I've known lots of engineers who just tweaked circuits they found on
data sheets or on eval boards. One guy I know has a nice little
business basically repackaging eval boards.


Good engineers have "insight" = a deep understanding of how stuff works.

This leaves all the software guys gasping.

Insight informs one's "intuition" - so your assessment of what might be possible with what is currently available is very good.



but if intuition is all you've got, you might agree.


** And if you have none you are stuffed.

Yep. Math is for verifying an idea after the fact. Or sometimes
predicting that a better idea is possible. But without the idea
first, there's nothing to do the math on.

Most people get along fine without ever having original ideas. Society
only needs a small minority of creative lunatics.

Spice hugely improves creating and testing wild ideas.

I'm just now iterating a complex design using a soldering iron. It's a
huge pain. The parts I'm battling don't Spice well.



** JL leaves you wondering if he is in agreement - or not.

He was agreeing and elaborating, adding a current example.

Guess he just likes to "have an edge" as Mr Eastwood remarked.

I am under no obligation to make sense, other than having my circuits
work.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT), buecherk@gmail.com wrote:

Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't simulate them
all. You can sleep on it and let your brain evaluate the 1e7 solutions
and pick a few good ones to simulate.

Good intuition and experience 'might' make me choose the right one at the startoff.
And then, combine that with good engineering and simulation and soldering and ....

But don't commit too soon. It's best to stay confused for a few days.

It's also very helpful to talk to someone else about a circuit
concept. I just did that, and the results were good, if hard to draw.

Klaus
--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 6:49:50 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 10:56:08 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 04:14:07 -0700 (PDT), bulegoge@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

Przemek Klosowski.... thank you for pointing to that interview on YouTube. I really liked the guys view on what the ltspice program is for which is so that the engineer can get better intuition as to how his circuits work. It is a piece of verification but should not be used is the sole purpose of verifying. I guess I like it because it resonated with my viewpoints about use of such a program

Being an IC guy, he did miss that a little as regards PC boards. I
often use LT Spice as the only process before I go to a PC board, but
then PC boards can be modified a lot easier than linear ICs, and parts
are mostly temperature stable as purchased.

And I design using LT Spice. Once one has some intuition, one can just
throw parts around in the sim and see what happens. That works
surprisingly well. I have several circuits in production that I don't
really understand.

I do much less math than I used to do. I guess rough values and tweak
in LT Spice. Voltage dividers, filters, oscillators this week. So it's
a calculator, too.

It also draws presentable diagrams to include in emails and manuals.
It's a drawing program.

I've had his same thought before: Romans built waterworks, people
built bridges and cathedrals and cannons and sailing ships, before
Newton invented calculus. Most science explained what people had
already built.
Sure, You'll also agree that generations of wisdom went into
mixing the right mortars, smelting iron/steel
and breaking masts with sails*.

And to John's point, much of that steel came to us by
Bessemer's fiddling not suggested to him by any equation
unavailable to everyone else, but by sheer dogged empirical
determination, then additions and refinements from later
minds.

And why did Bessemer do it? Wiki says he was inspired by
a conversation with Napoleon III to solve the high price of
artillery. I.e., the need was to facilitate war.

Bessemer's motivation? Possibly profit. He made some astute business
maneuvers suggesting so. And the innovation and the cheap steel that
resulted certainly wouldn't have happened in a socialist country,
without that profit motive. (And think of the loss to humanity,
think of the world today without cheap steel...)

But personally, like some of us, I think Bessemer did it because
he was having a blast.

I totally agree about intelligent fiddling. (intuition)
which you only get by fiddling with stuff.

I should do more ltspice. I mostly fiddle with solder.

George H.
Oh Przemek, thanks for the video.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 7:30:24 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

---------------------

Bill Sloman is Totally Weird wrote:

---------------------------------


"Intuition is the most important part of engineering."

That's great.

It's actually insane,


** What an absurd claim.

Makes it very clear that Bill has none so has no clue what it is - apart from reading a dictionary.


One of Jim Williams' books has a great chapter by Barrie Gilbert,
"Where do little circuits come from?"

I've known lots of engineers who just tweaked circuits they found on
data sheets or on eval boards. One guy I know has a nice little
business basically repackaging eval boards.


Good engineers have "insight" = a deep understanding of how stuff works.

This leaves all the software guys gasping.

Insight informs one's "intuition" - so your assessment of what might be possible with what is currently available is very good.



but if intuition is all you've got, you might agree.


** And if you have none you are stuffed.

Yep. Math is for verifying an idea after the fact. Or sometimes
predicting that a better idea is possible. But without the idea
first, there's nothing to do the math on.

Most people get along fine without ever having original ideas. Society
only needs a small minority of creative lunatics.

Spice hugely improves creating and testing wild ideas.

I'm just now iterating a complex design using a soldering iron. It's a
huge pain. The parts I'm battling don't Spice well.



** JL leaves you wondering if he is in agreement - or not.

He was agreeing and elaborating, adding a current example.

> Guess he just likes to "have an edge" as Mr Eastwood remarked.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Phil Allison]

John Larkin wrote:

------------------

** JL leaves you wondering if he is in agreement - or not.

He was agreeing and elaborating, adding a current example.

Guess he just likes to "have an edge" as Mr Eastwood remarked.

I am under no obligation to make sense,

** ROTFL - John, you have certainly succeeded in that direction.


Wot a bullshitting ass.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

John Larkin is Nuts wrote:

-----------------

** JL leaves you wondering if he is in agreement - or not.

He was agreeing and elaborating, adding a current example.

Guess he just likes to "have an edge" as Mr Eastwood remarked.

I am under no obligation to make sense,



** ROTFL - John, you have certainly succeeded in that direction.

Yes. The circuits almost always work first try.

** He did it again !!!

Wot a hoot.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:44:34 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

------------------


** JL leaves you wondering if he is in agreement - or not.

He was agreeing and elaborating, adding a current example.

Guess he just likes to "have an edge" as Mr Eastwood remarked.

I am under no obligation to make sense,



** ROTFL - John, you have certainly succeeded in that direction.

Yes. The circuits almost always work first try.

Read this:

https://www.amazon.com/What-Care-Other-People-Think/dp/0393355640/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=book+feinman+people+think&qid=1583964038&sr=8-2

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:b7756c49-689e-4ad7-
a010-cc8c8f46ae77@googlegroups.com:

John Larkin wrote:

------------------


** JL leaves you wondering if he is in agreement - or not.

He was agreeing and elaborating, adding a current example.

Guess he just likes to "have an edge" as Mr Eastwood remarked.

I am under no obligation to make sense,



** ROTFL - John, you have certainly succeeded in that direction.


Wot a bullshitting ass.



..... Phil

It was all that surplus lead on his solder joints.

 

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in news:r4bq1u$11mv$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:b7756c49-689e-
4ad7-
a010-cc8c8f46ae77@googlegroups.com:

John Larkin wrote:

------------------


** JL leaves you wondering if he is in agreement - or not.

He was agreeing and elaborating, adding a current example.

Guess he just likes to "have an edge" as Mr Eastwood
remarked.

I am under no obligation to make sense,



** ROTFL - John, you have certainly succeeded in that direction.


Wot a bullshitting ass.



..... Phil

It was all that surplus lead on his solder joints.

He even gets his stencils a little thick...

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 8/3/20 3:24 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 04:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
przemek@tux.dot.org> wrote:
Mike's 2018 interview says that his main job at AD is creating AD part
models in LTSpice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TrbD7-IwU

"Intuition is the most important part of engineering."
That's great.

I think it's true in computer programming too.

However I'd like to point out that a large part of this "intuition"
actually uses our aesthetic sense. By experience, we learn to prefer
solutions that have a certain simplicity, and to avoid things we've come
to recognise as kluges. This is *learned* behaviour, not "natural
intuition".

The aesthetic preference applies in mathematics too, of course.

CH

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin is Nuts wrote:

-----------------



** JL leaves you wondering if he is in agreement - or not.

He was agreeing and elaborating, adding a current example.

Guess he just likes to "have an edge" as Mr Eastwood remarked.

I am under no obligation to make sense,



** ROTFL - John, you have certainly succeeded in that direction.

Yes. The circuits almost always work first try.


** He did it again !!!

Yes. You should see the 70 volt pulses that I'm making.

Wot a hoot.

Yup, great fun.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 6:21:36 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 6:49:50 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 10:56:08 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 04:14:07 -0700 (PDT), bulegoge@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

<snip>

And to John's point, much of that steel came to us by
Bessemer's fiddling not suggested to him by any equation
unavailable to everyone else, but by sheer dogged empirical
determination, then additions and refinements from later
minds.

Except that James Nasmyth had much the same idea - to the extent that Bessemer offered him a one third share in the patent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nasmyth

Robert Forester Mushet did thousands of experiments at his Darkhill Ironworks to get the process to work right, and Bessemer ended up giving him an annual pension of ÂŁ300, a very considerable sum, which he paid for over 20 years; possibly with a view to keeping the Mushets from legal action.

> And why did Bessemer do it?

He was an inventor from way back, with a long history of looking for better ways to provide a product for which there was a known market.

> Wiki says he was inspired by a conversation with Napoleon III to solve the high price of artillery. I.e., the need was to facilitate war.

It's not in this Wikipedia article - the reference is only to military ordnance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bessemer

> Bessemer's motivation? Possibly profit.

Obviously profit.

He made some astute business
maneuvers suggesting so. And the innovation and the cheap steel that
resulted certainly wouldn't have happened in a socialist country,
without that profit motive.

James Arthur thinks that communist countries are the only socialist countries.
Democratic socialist countries - as in Scandinavia - are perfectly comfortable with the profit motive.

(And think of the loss to humanity,
think of the world today without cheap steel...)

Another one of James Arthur's concocted sound-bites.

But personally, like some of us, I think Bessemer did it because
he was having a blast.

I totally agree about intelligent fiddling. (intuition)
which you only get by fiddling with stuff.

If you fiddle intelligently, you can make sense of what you are doing, and it stops being intuitive. It's a slower process, but much less error-prone.

> > I should do more ltspice. I mostly fiddle with solder.

It's a lot quicker to exploit mathematical simulations - worked out by people who had thought about what they were doing - and they do produce more reliable results than intuition, but every mathematical model is a simplification of reality. You've still got to solder something together and make sure that it does what ltspice predicts it will.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman is Lying wrote:

dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
John Larkin wrote:


but if intuition is all you've got, you might agree.

** And if you have none you are stuffed.

Yep. Math is for verifying an idea after the fact. Or sometimes
predicting that a better idea is possible. But without the idea
first, there's nothing to do the math on.

John Larkin's claim was " "Intuition is the most important part of engineering."

** Not JL's claim at all.

Engineering may include inventing new solutions, but that's only part of the business. Intuition is handy, but it's not under rational control,

** Nonsense.

Because Bill lacks insight and intuative thinking he is relying on a dictionary definition that is not appropriate

I predicted exactly this in an earlier post.


> The most important part of engineering is transforming ideas into stuff that works reliably.

** Major red herring.

Everybody has intuition.

** Wrong definition.

Engineering "intuition" is a totally different thing.

Already described by me as being informed by great insight born of experience and understanding.

Bill will never get it, since he will never admit being a dull autistic and rote learning thinker.

Plus giant asshole.



...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 6:00:19 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 7:30:24 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

but if intuition is all you've got, you might agree.

** And if you have none you are stuffed.

Yep. Math is for verifying an idea after the fact. Or sometimes
predicting that a better idea is possible. But without the idea
first, there's nothing to do the math on.

John Larkin's claim was " "Intuition is the most important part of engineering."

Engineering may include inventing new solutions, but that's only part of the business. Intuition is handy, but it's not under rational control, and it comes up with a lot of bad ideas.

The most important part of engineering is transforming ideas into stuff that works reliably.

Everybody has intuition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

points out that everybody has two modes of thought - the fast, quick and instinctive reactions that get labelled as intuitions - and the slower, more rational approach, that involves chains of reasoning.

Engineering is all about the second mode.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 1:39:52 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On 11 Mar 2020 06:28:32 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote...

There are other ways of predicting what a circuit will do,
and you can - in principle - create you own Spice models of
parts which better reflect what they do in the circumstances
in which you wish to use them.

I like to make small SPICE models of parts, derived from
analytical expressions of a few critical things that're
going on in the aspect of the circuit I'm evaluating.

For example, consider an op-amp driving a power MOSFET to
create a controlled current source. The FET's high gate
capacitance, along with the bootstrapped source resistor,
creates a confusing control loop. My RIS-796, a 250-amp
LED pulser project, uses this. If you want, sets of files:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tcmiahzzughadfk/AABtgFDy01cuTDWDRjujP6jva?dl=1

In AoE x-Chapter 4x.26, we struggled and derived a set of
analytical equations for this circuit. See article here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o4g4mhzl70rsi9t/4x.26_MOSFET_CS_nodal-analysis_final.pdf?
dl=1

The circuit basis for the equations uses the MOSFET's gm,
equation id = gm (vg-vs), and its gate capacitance, Ciss.
The equations are hairy. But we also suggest you can make
a simple SPICE circuit with the op-amp, the FET's id and
Ciss, plus additional Rs and Cs, to evaluate the circuit.

Such a scheme may only works well over a limited range of
conditions, e.g., using the value for gm at the FET's 250A
current, means that the reduced-current startup won't be
accurately modeled. But it's still quick and useful. And
you can repeat the SPICE run, with lower values of gm, to
get an idea of what's happening during the pulse startup.

Nearly all interesting systems are nonlinear, and analytic equations
are hard or impossible for nonlinear systems.

The Gummel-Poon model of the transistor is non-linear - largely exponential - but it is extensively used. It might be hard, but it certainly isn't impossible.

So the math becomes guidance, suggestions or starting points for
simulation or experiment.

Mathematical models are always over-simplifications of reality, but large chunks of reality are non-linear, and the guidance can be very useful.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 6:38:28 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT), buecherk@gmail.com wrote:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't simulate them
all. You can sleep on it and let your brain evaluate the 1e7 solutions
and pick a few good ones to simulate.

Or you can look at few of them and think about it, which gives your sleeping brain more to work with.

Good intuition and experience 'might' make me choose the right one at the startoff. And then, combine that with good engineering and simulation and soldering and ....

But don't commit too soon. It's best to stay confused for a few days.

It's also very helpful to talk to someone else about a circuit
concept. I just did that, and the results were good, if hard to draw.

Talking to somebody about a circuit concept is central to engineering.

Lots of engineering thinking is non-verbal, and nailing the ideas down clearly enough to let you talk about them is a valuable exercise.

You've got to do it anyway when you document the design, but it really does pay to do it early.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney