Ramblings about Airborne Power supply design and testing

Guest
Over the last few years the RF design work in my company has dried up and I have been frequently assigned to power supply testing (and some design) per MIL-STD-704 and DO-160.

Here goes.....
Item 1.

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?
A. Aside from working over the specified input voltages and conditions ("normal operation" - which have a few subtleties) the important thing is that if 28V (typical nominal voltage for my category of equipment) is present on the input the box better be working. It is surprising how difficult that simple requirement is to achieve. The testing regiment requires the unit to be put through many types of over/under voltage tests that will take the box down and then the requirement is that the unit re-powers up without user intervention and works correctly. This is not a trivial requirement. Much of the testing really revolves around the standard's notion that this is not a trivial requirement.

---As an aside , one aircraft manufacturer requires additional tests above and beyond those in DO-160. In one case they require 8 waveforms that impose glitches on the startup voltage when powering up. Sure enough, we ran these waveforms and one of their sequences locked our unit up (power was applied to the terminals and the unit was latched up and required user intervention to power it off and back on to get it to work).

Many (most) of our products require a write to flash memory on power down......oh boy , this requires a lot of attention to get it right.

Item 2.... Just run the waveforms.....OK, I have had to work real hard, at times, to educate my management that most of the time I find a problem it is in the setting up of the required waveforms. Say I have an undervoltage requirement of 12 Volts and as I am setting it up I apply 11 volts and the unit locks up. The first thing a manager tries to do (until properly educated....fortunately my mangers do try to do the right thing....most of the time) is to ask if the unit works with the specified waveform and I have to answer yes.....but.....The real purpose of the test is to make you look at the unit 100 different ways to Sunday to see if the unit latches up and part of the process is the setup variations that will frequently be where the sweet (sour) spot is. So I have to go back and remind them that if I can have 28V appllied to the box and it is latched up it really does not matter what I did to the unit before ---the box not adequate for an aircraft. (of course this whatever you do are within reasonable guidelines....undervoltages, short duration overvoltages and some ripple on the input voltage). When a manager tries to tell me to just run the waveforms I ask him if we can have this discussion with the customer to get clarification.....99% of the time that forces the required (and painful) design changes.

Item 3. Power input is a big deal to aircaft manufacturers. If you think MIL-STD-704/DO-160 is rigorous you should see what one well known aircraft manufacturer in France requires in addition to DO-160. It takes weeks to run the tests.....They do not want a box to latch up on their aircraft

Item 4. Normal operation.... These are the voltage variations that are applied that the unit is expected to work through. The aircraft manufacturers HATE HATE HATE latchups, but they also do not like the unit temporarily shutting off when it should not shut off. These normal operation requirements revolve around3 basic things 1. the unit will stay powered up for 200 ms (this can vary) when power drops below a specified voltage (hold-up cap required) 2. The unit will stay powered up when over voltages are less than 200 ms 3. The unit will operate through various audio frequencies imposed on top of the DC voltage. 4. The unit will operate from typically 16or18V to approximately 29-33 volts (each unit will have these nailed down exactly in a spec)

Item 5. All the other stresses are abnormal conditions and they should not cause the unit to latch up (per above) and also not damage the unit (OK thats obvious, but it is explicitly stated and required).

Item 6. Ideal diodes, they are not so ideal. I have seen designs where an Ideal diode (smart FET) is used instead of a schottky diode on the input. Yeah they work for negative voltages....but About those Audio frequencies imposed on the DC lines..... , they walk right through the ideal diode. I am of the persuasion to use a schottky diode with a large capacitor after it. This will not allow internal resonances to develop which can cause many amps of current to circulate through the input circuitry. Take the 0.5V hit on efficiency. The real diode is so much nicer (do note I am coming at this for units that are 30W or less, usually less).

Item 7. Application of transients. MIL-STD-704 typically requires 5 applications of a particular interrupt (for instance) waveform. I insist on doing each one manually and slowly. Apply and observe before the next application of the transient. I have seen where people try to automate these transient applications and wind up making a burst of 5. I think this breaks the spirit of what is expected. I have seen the automatic test blow through them so fast that you cannot even tell what happened. I insist on manual application of transient waveforms.

Item 8 Some things can be automated. For instance , the slow sweep and dwell of audio frequncy ripple is OK if you are still able to properly monitor the equipment.

Item 9. In MIL-STD-704 people get confused because the first battery of tests are not about how the unit operates with voltage corruptions, but rather it is an assessment of how your unit might affect the power bus. For low power equipment always fight for these things to be characterized but not specified. EVERY TIME I test any of these items to a spec it fails....Especially inrush current. Just characterize it!

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)....Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 7:24:13 AM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
Over the last few years the RF design work in my company has dried up and I have been frequently assigned to power supply testing (and some design) per MIL-STD-704 and DO-160.

Here goes.....
Item 1.

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?
A. Aside from working over the specified input voltages and conditions ("normal operation" - which have a few subtleties) the important thing is that if 28V (typical nominal voltage for my category of equipment) is present on the input the box better be working. It is surprising how difficult that simple requirement is to achieve. The testing regiment requires the unit to be put through many types of over/under voltage tests that will take the box down and then the requirement is that the unit re-powers up without user intervention and works correctly. This is not a trivial requirement. Much of the testing really revolves around the standard's notion that this is not a trivial requirement.

---As an aside , one aircraft manufacturer requires additional tests above and beyond those in DO-160. In one case they require 8 waveforms that impose glitches on the startup voltage when powering up. Sure enough, we ran these waveforms and one of their sequences locked our unit up (power was applied to the terminals and the unit was latched up and required user intervention to power it off and back on to get it to work).

Many (most) of our products require a write to flash memory on power down......oh boy , this requires a lot of attention to get it right.

Item 2.... Just run the waveforms.....OK, I have had to work real hard, at times, to educate my management that most of the time I find a problem it is in the setting up of the required waveforms. Say I have an undervoltage requirement of 12 Volts and as I am setting it up I apply 11 volts and the unit locks up. The first thing a manager tries to do (until properly educated....fortunately my mangers do try to do the right thing....most of the time) is to ask if the unit works with the specified waveform and I have to answer yes.....but.....The real purpose of the test is to make you look at the unit 100 different ways to Sunday to see if the unit latches up and part of the process is the setup variations that will frequently be where the sweet (sour) spot is. So I have to go back and remind them that if I can have 28V appllied to the box and it is latched up it really does not matter what I did to the unit before ---the box not adequate for an aircraft. (of course this whatever you do are within reasonable guidelines....undervoltages, short duration overvoltages and some ripple on the input voltage). When a manager tries to tell me to just run the waveforms I ask him if we can have this discussion with the customer to get clarification.....99% of the time that forces the required (and painful) design changes.

Item 3. Power input is a big deal to aircaft manufacturers. If you think MIL-STD-704/DO-160 is rigorous you should see what one well known aircraft manufacturer in France requires in addition to DO-160. It takes weeks to run the tests.....They do not want a box to latch up on their aircraft

Item 4. Normal operation.... These are the voltage variations that are applied that the unit is expected to work through. The aircraft manufacturers HATE HATE HATE latchups, but they also do not like the unit temporarily shutting off when it should not shut off. These normal operation requirements revolve around3 basic things 1. the unit will stay powered up for 200 ms (this can vary) when power drops below a specified voltage (hold-up cap required) 2. The unit will stay powered up when over voltages are less than 200 ms 3. The unit will operate through various audio frequencies imposed on top of the DC voltage. 4. The unit will operate from typically 16or18V to approximately 29-33 volts (each unit will have these nailed down exactly in a spec)

Item 5. All the other stresses are abnormal conditions and they should not cause the unit to latch up (per above) and also not damage the unit (OK thats obvious, but it is explicitly stated and required).

Item 6. Ideal diodes, they are not so ideal. I have seen designs where an Ideal diode (smart FET) is used instead of a schottky diode on the input. Yeah they work for negative voltages....but About those Audio frequencies imposed on the DC lines..... , they walk right through the ideal diode. I am of the persuasion to use a schottky diode with a large capacitor after it. This will not allow internal resonances to develop which can cause many amps of current to circulate through the input circuitry. Take the 0.5V hit on efficiency. The real diode is so much nicer (do note I am coming at this for units that are 30W or less, usually less).

Item 7. Application of transients. MIL-STD-704 typically requires 5 applications of a particular interrupt (for instance) waveform. I insist on doing each one manually and slowly. Apply and observe before the next application of the transient. I have seen where people try to automate these transient applications and wind up making a burst of 5. I think this breaks the spirit of what is expected. I have seen the automatic test blow through them so fast that you cannot even tell what happened. I insist on manual application of transient waveforms.

Item 8 Some things can be automated. For instance , the slow sweep and dwell of audio frequncy ripple is OK if you are still able to properly monitor the equipment.

Item 9. In MIL-STD-704 people get confused because the first battery of tests are not about how the unit operates with voltage corruptions, but rather it is an assessment of how your unit might affect the power bus. For low power equipment always fight for these things to be characterized but not specified. EVERY TIME I test any of these items to a spec it fails....Especially inrush current. Just characterize it!

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)....Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 11. I really like power supplies to be on or off, no wierd states at low voltage especially. Again, this is not so easy. I really like a lot (2 volts) of hysteresis at low voltages to force the unit to either be on or off. A flyback transformer on the input can really act squirrely right at turn on.
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 7:24:13 AM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
Over the last few years the RF design work in my company has dried up and I have been frequently assigned to power supply testing (and some design) per MIL-STD-704 and DO-160.

Here goes.....
Item 1.

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?
A. Aside from working over the specified input voltages and conditions ("normal operation" - which have a few subtleties) the important thing is that if 28V (typical nominal voltage for my category of equipment) is present on the input the box better be working. It is surprising how difficult that simple requirement is to achieve. The testing regiment requires the unit to be put through many types of over/under voltage tests that will take the box down and then the requirement is that the unit re-powers up without user intervention and works correctly. This is not a trivial requirement. Much of the testing really revolves around the standard's notion that this is not a trivial requirement.

---As an aside , one aircraft manufacturer requires additional tests above and beyond those in DO-160. In one case they require 8 waveforms that impose glitches on the startup voltage when powering up. Sure enough, we ran these waveforms and one of their sequences locked our unit up (power was applied to the terminals and the unit was latched up and required user intervention to power it off and back on to get it to work).

Many (most) of our products require a write to flash memory on power down......oh boy , this requires a lot of attention to get it right.

Item 2.... Just run the waveforms.....OK, I have had to work real hard, at times, to educate my management that most of the time I find a problem it is in the setting up of the required waveforms. Say I have an undervoltage requirement of 12 Volts and as I am setting it up I apply 11 volts and the unit locks up. The first thing a manager tries to do (until properly educated....fortunately my mangers do try to do the right thing....most of the time) is to ask if the unit works with the specified waveform and I have to answer yes.....but.....The real purpose of the test is to make you look at the unit 100 different ways to Sunday to see if the unit latches up and part of the process is the setup variations that will frequently be where the sweet (sour) spot is. So I have to go back and remind them that if I can have 28V appllied to the box and it is latched up it really does not matter what I did to the unit before ---the box not adequate for an aircraft. (of course this whatever you do are within reasonable guidelines....undervoltages, short duration overvoltages and some ripple on the input voltage). When a manager tries to tell me to just run the waveforms I ask him if we can have this discussion with the customer to get clarification.....99% of the time that forces the required (and painful) design changes.

Item 3. Power input is a big deal to aircaft manufacturers. If you think MIL-STD-704/DO-160 is rigorous you should see what one well known aircraft manufacturer in France requires in addition to DO-160. It takes weeks to run the tests.....They do not want a box to latch up on their aircraft

Item 4. Normal operation.... These are the voltage variations that are applied that the unit is expected to work through. The aircraft manufacturers HATE HATE HATE latchups, but they also do not like the unit temporarily shutting off when it should not shut off. These normal operation requirements revolve around3 basic things 1. the unit will stay powered up for 200 ms (this can vary) when power drops below a specified voltage (hold-up cap required) 2. The unit will stay powered up when over voltages are less than 200 ms 3. The unit will operate through various audio frequencies imposed on top of the DC voltage. 4. The unit will operate from typically 16or18V to approximately 29-33 volts (each unit will have these nailed down exactly in a spec)

Item 5. All the other stresses are abnormal conditions and they should not cause the unit to latch up (per above) and also not damage the unit (OK thats obvious, but it is explicitly stated and required).

Item 6. Ideal diodes, they are not so ideal. I have seen designs where an Ideal diode (smart FET) is used instead of a schottky diode on the input. Yeah they work for negative voltages....but About those Audio frequencies imposed on the DC lines..... , they walk right through the ideal diode. I am of the persuasion to use a schottky diode with a large capacitor after it. This will not allow internal resonances to develop which can cause many amps of current to circulate through the input circuitry. Take the 0.5V hit on efficiency. The real diode is so much nicer (do note I am coming at this for units that are 30W or less, usually less).

Item 7. Application of transients. MIL-STD-704 typically requires 5 applications of a particular interrupt (for instance) waveform. I insist on doing each one manually and slowly. Apply and observe before the next application of the transient. I have seen where people try to automate these transient applications and wind up making a burst of 5. I think this breaks the spirit of what is expected. I have seen the automatic test blow through them so fast that you cannot even tell what happened. I insist on manual application of transient waveforms.

Item 8 Some things can be automated. For instance , the slow sweep and dwell of audio frequncy ripple is OK if you are still able to properly monitor the equipment.

Item 9. In MIL-STD-704 people get confused because the first battery of tests are not about how the unit operates with voltage corruptions, but rather it is an assessment of how your unit might affect the power bus. For low power equipment always fight for these things to be characterized but not specified. EVERY TIME I test any of these items to a spec it fails....Especially inrush current. Just characterize it!

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)....Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 12. Failsafes....In avionics a broken box that gets pulled and sent back to us is better than a not-broken box that gets sent back to us. The disaster is the box getting pulled, not the box being broken, per say. If you put in failsafes that mask a failure in order to protect the unit from damage, this may actually cause more harm than good.
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 7:24:13 AM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
Over the last few years the RF design work in my company has dried up and I have been frequently assigned to power supply testing (and some design) per MIL-STD-704 and DO-160.

Here goes.....
Item 1.

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?
A. Aside from working over the specified input voltages and conditions ("normal operation" - which have a few subtleties) the important thing is that if 28V (typical nominal voltage for my category of equipment) is present on the input the box better be working. It is surprising how difficult that simple requirement is to achieve. The testing regiment requires the unit to be put through many types of over/under voltage tests that will take the box down and then the requirement is that the unit re-powers up without user intervention and works correctly. This is not a trivial requirement. Much of the testing really revolves around the standard's notion that this is not a trivial requirement.

---As an aside , one aircraft manufacturer requires additional tests above and beyond those in DO-160. In one case they require 8 waveforms that impose glitches on the startup voltage when powering up. Sure enough, we ran these waveforms and one of their sequences locked our unit up (power was applied to the terminals and the unit was latched up and required user intervention to power it off and back on to get it to work).

Many (most) of our products require a write to flash memory on power down......oh boy , this requires a lot of attention to get it right.

Item 2.... Just run the waveforms.....OK, I have had to work real hard, at times, to educate my management that most of the time I find a problem it is in the setting up of the required waveforms. Say I have an undervoltage requirement of 12 Volts and as I am setting it up I apply 11 volts and the unit locks up. The first thing a manager tries to do (until properly educated....fortunately my mangers do try to do the right thing....most of the time) is to ask if the unit works with the specified waveform and I have to answer yes.....but.....The real purpose of the test is to make you look at the unit 100 different ways to Sunday to see if the unit latches up and part of the process is the setup variations that will frequently be where the sweet (sour) spot is. So I have to go back and remind them that if I can have 28V appllied to the box and it is latched up it really does not matter what I did to the unit before ---the box not adequate for an aircraft. (of course this whatever you do are within reasonable guidelines....undervoltages, short duration overvoltages and some ripple on the input voltage). When a manager tries to tell me to just run the waveforms I ask him if we can have this discussion with the customer to get clarification.....99% of the time that forces the required (and painful) design changes.

Item 3. Power input is a big deal to aircaft manufacturers. If you think MIL-STD-704/DO-160 is rigorous you should see what one well known aircraft manufacturer in France requires in addition to DO-160. It takes weeks to run the tests.....They do not want a box to latch up on their aircraft

Item 4. Normal operation.... These are the voltage variations that are applied that the unit is expected to work through. The aircraft manufacturers HATE HATE HATE latchups, but they also do not like the unit temporarily shutting off when it should not shut off. These normal operation requirements revolve around3 basic things 1. the unit will stay powered up for 200 ms (this can vary) when power drops below a specified voltage (hold-up cap required) 2. The unit will stay powered up when over voltages are less than 200 ms 3. The unit will operate through various audio frequencies imposed on top of the DC voltage. 4. The unit will operate from typically 16or18V to approximately 29-33 volts (each unit will have these nailed down exactly in a spec)

Item 5. All the other stresses are abnormal conditions and they should not cause the unit to latch up (per above) and also not damage the unit (OK thats obvious, but it is explicitly stated and required).

Item 6. Ideal diodes, they are not so ideal. I have seen designs where an Ideal diode (smart FET) is used instead of a schottky diode on the input. Yeah they work for negative voltages....but About those Audio frequencies imposed on the DC lines..... , they walk right through the ideal diode. I am of the persuasion to use a schottky diode with a large capacitor after it. This will not allow internal resonances to develop which can cause many amps of current to circulate through the input circuitry. Take the 0.5V hit on efficiency. The real diode is so much nicer (do note I am coming at this for units that are 30W or less, usually less).

Item 7. Application of transients. MIL-STD-704 typically requires 5 applications of a particular interrupt (for instance) waveform. I insist on doing each one manually and slowly. Apply and observe before the next application of the transient. I have seen where people try to automate these transient applications and wind up making a burst of 5. I think this breaks the spirit of what is expected. I have seen the automatic test blow through them so fast that you cannot even tell what happened. I insist on manual application of transient waveforms.

Item 8 Some things can be automated. For instance , the slow sweep and dwell of audio frequncy ripple is OK if you are still able to properly monitor the equipment.

Item 9. In MIL-STD-704 people get confused because the first battery of tests are not about how the unit operates with voltage corruptions, but rather it is an assessment of how your unit might affect the power bus. For low power equipment always fight for these things to be characterized but not specified. EVERY TIME I test any of these items to a spec it fails....Especially inrush current. Just characterize it!

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)....Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 13. Limits(specs) vs tests. There is some confusion here because typically the spec (say MIL-STD-704) has a specification which shows the requirement as a limit curve. What does that mean? How do you know if you satisfy the specification because it is such a broad and all encompassing curve? Fortunately, the military provides MIL-HDBK-704 which defines specific tests. The idea is that if you follow the testing regimen defined in MIL-HDBK-704 then you can rightfully claim that you meet the specification.
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 7:24:13 AM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
Over the last few years the RF design work in my company has dried up and I have been frequently assigned to power supply testing (and some design) per MIL-STD-704 and DO-160.

Here goes.....
Item 1.

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?
A. Aside from working over the specified input voltages and conditions ("normal operation" - which have a few subtleties) the important thing is that if 28V (typical nominal voltage for my category of equipment) is present on the input the box better be working. It is surprising how difficult that simple requirement is to achieve. The testing regiment requires the unit to be put through many types of over/under voltage tests that will take the box down and then the requirement is that the unit re-powers up without user intervention and works correctly. This is not a trivial requirement. Much of the testing really revolves around the standard's notion that this is not a trivial requirement.

---As an aside , one aircraft manufacturer requires additional tests above and beyond those in DO-160. In one case they require 8 waveforms that impose glitches on the startup voltage when powering up. Sure enough, we ran these waveforms and one of their sequences locked our unit up (power was applied to the terminals and the unit was latched up and required user intervention to power it off and back on to get it to work).

Many (most) of our products require a write to flash memory on power down......oh boy , this requires a lot of attention to get it right.

Item 2.... Just run the waveforms.....OK, I have had to work real hard, at times, to educate my management that most of the time I find a problem it is in the setting up of the required waveforms. Say I have an undervoltage requirement of 12 Volts and as I am setting it up I apply 11 volts and the unit locks up. The first thing a manager tries to do (until properly educated....fortunately my mangers do try to do the right thing....most of the time) is to ask if the unit works with the specified waveform and I have to answer yes.....but.....The real purpose of the test is to make you look at the unit 100 different ways to Sunday to see if the unit latches up and part of the process is the setup variations that will frequently be where the sweet (sour) spot is. So I have to go back and remind them that if I can have 28V appllied to the box and it is latched up it really does not matter what I did to the unit before ---the box not adequate for an aircraft. (of course this whatever you do are within reasonable guidelines....undervoltages, short duration overvoltages and some ripple on the input voltage). When a manager tries to tell me to just run the waveforms I ask him if we can have this discussion with the customer to get clarification.....99% of the time that forces the required (and painful) design changes.

Item 3. Power input is a big deal to aircaft manufacturers. If you think MIL-STD-704/DO-160 is rigorous you should see what one well known aircraft manufacturer in France requires in addition to DO-160. It takes weeks to run the tests.....They do not want a box to latch up on their aircraft

Item 4. Normal operation.... These are the voltage variations that are applied that the unit is expected to work through. The aircraft manufacturers HATE HATE HATE latchups, but they also do not like the unit temporarily shutting off when it should not shut off. These normal operation requirements revolve around3 basic things 1. the unit will stay powered up for 200 ms (this can vary) when power drops below a specified voltage (hold-up cap required) 2. The unit will stay powered up when over voltages are less than 200 ms 3. The unit will operate through various audio frequencies imposed on top of the DC voltage. 4. The unit will operate from typically 16or18V to approximately 29-33 volts (each unit will have these nailed down exactly in a spec)

Item 5. All the other stresses are abnormal conditions and they should not cause the unit to latch up (per above) and also not damage the unit (OK thats obvious, but it is explicitly stated and required).

Item 6. Ideal diodes, they are not so ideal. I have seen designs where an Ideal diode (smart FET) is used instead of a schottky diode on the input. Yeah they work for negative voltages....but About those Audio frequencies imposed on the DC lines..... , they walk right through the ideal diode. I am of the persuasion to use a schottky diode with a large capacitor after it. This will not allow internal resonances to develop which can cause many amps of current to circulate through the input circuitry. Take the 0.5V hit on efficiency. The real diode is so much nicer (do note I am coming at this for units that are 30W or less, usually less).

Item 7. Application of transients. MIL-STD-704 typically requires 5 applications of a particular interrupt (for instance) waveform. I insist on doing each one manually and slowly. Apply and observe before the next application of the transient. I have seen where people try to automate these transient applications and wind up making a burst of 5. I think this breaks the spirit of what is expected. I have seen the automatic test blow through them so fast that you cannot even tell what happened. I insist on manual application of transient waveforms.

Item 8 Some things can be automated. For instance , the slow sweep and dwell of audio frequncy ripple is OK if you are still able to properly monitor the equipment.

Item 9. In MIL-STD-704 people get confused because the first battery of tests are not about how the unit operates with voltage corruptions, but rather it is an assessment of how your unit might affect the power bus. For low power equipment always fight for these things to be characterized but not specified. EVERY TIME I test any of these items to a spec it fails....Especially inrush current. Just characterize it!

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)....Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 15...400Vac testing. These standards define tests for 28V systems, 400Hz 115 single phase, 400V 115 3phase and 270 V. I have been exploring the 400Hz single phase. This typically requires going to a dedicated lab to run these test (frequency and amplitude variations are simultaneously required). I am testing low power equipment so I am currently running my trusty picker with a step up transformer to se if I can generate many (if not all ) of the 400Hz required waveforms. So far so good. I think I can do most of the waveforms in house for confidence testing.
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 7:24:13 AM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
Over the last few years the RF design work in my company has dried up and I have been frequently assigned to power supply testing (and some design) per MIL-STD-704 and DO-160.

Here goes.....
Item 1.

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?
A. Aside from working over the specified input voltages and conditions ("normal operation" - which have a few subtleties) the important thing is that if 28V (typical nominal voltage for my category of equipment) is present on the input the box better be working. It is surprising how difficult that simple requirement is to achieve. The testing regiment requires the unit to be put through many types of over/under voltage tests that will take the box down and then the requirement is that the unit re-powers up without user intervention and works correctly. This is not a trivial requirement. Much of the testing really revolves around the standard's notion that this is not a trivial requirement.

---As an aside , one aircraft manufacturer requires additional tests above and beyond those in DO-160. In one case they require 8 waveforms that impose glitches on the startup voltage when powering up. Sure enough, we ran these waveforms and one of their sequences locked our unit up (power was applied to the terminals and the unit was latched up and required user intervention to power it off and back on to get it to work).

Many (most) of our products require a write to flash memory on power down......oh boy , this requires a lot of attention to get it right.

Item 2.... Just run the waveforms.....OK, I have had to work real hard, at times, to educate my management that most of the time I find a problem it is in the setting up of the required waveforms. Say I have an undervoltage requirement of 12 Volts and as I am setting it up I apply 11 volts and the unit locks up. The first thing a manager tries to do (until properly educated....fortunately my mangers do try to do the right thing....most of the time) is to ask if the unit works with the specified waveform and I have to answer yes.....but.....The real purpose of the test is to make you look at the unit 100 different ways to Sunday to see if the unit latches up and part of the process is the setup variations that will frequently be where the sweet (sour) spot is. So I have to go back and remind them that if I can have 28V appllied to the box and it is latched up it really does not matter what I did to the unit before ---the box not adequate for an aircraft. (of course this whatever you do are within reasonable guidelines....undervoltages, short duration overvoltages and some ripple on the input voltage). When a manager tries to tell me to just run the waveforms I ask him if we can have this discussion with the customer to get clarification.....99% of the time that forces the required (and painful) design changes.

Item 3. Power input is a big deal to aircaft manufacturers. If you think MIL-STD-704/DO-160 is rigorous you should see what one well known aircraft manufacturer in France requires in addition to DO-160. It takes weeks to run the tests.....They do not want a box to latch up on their aircraft

Item 4. Normal operation.... These are the voltage variations that are applied that the unit is expected to work through. The aircraft manufacturers HATE HATE HATE latchups, but they also do not like the unit temporarily shutting off when it should not shut off. These normal operation requirements revolve around3 basic things 1. the unit will stay powered up for 200 ms (this can vary) when power drops below a specified voltage (hold-up cap required) 2. The unit will stay powered up when over voltages are less than 200 ms 3. The unit will operate through various audio frequencies imposed on top of the DC voltage. 4. The unit will operate from typically 16or18V to approximately 29-33 volts (each unit will have these nailed down exactly in a spec)

Item 5. All the other stresses are abnormal conditions and they should not cause the unit to latch up (per above) and also not damage the unit (OK thats obvious, but it is explicitly stated and required).

Item 6. Ideal diodes, they are not so ideal. I have seen designs where an Ideal diode (smart FET) is used instead of a schottky diode on the input. Yeah they work for negative voltages....but About those Audio frequencies imposed on the DC lines..... , they walk right through the ideal diode. I am of the persuasion to use a schottky diode with a large capacitor after it. This will not allow internal resonances to develop which can cause many amps of current to circulate through the input circuitry. Take the 0.5V hit on efficiency. The real diode is so much nicer (do note I am coming at this for units that are 30W or less, usually less).

Item 7. Application of transients. MIL-STD-704 typically requires 5 applications of a particular interrupt (for instance) waveform. I insist on doing each one manually and slowly. Apply and observe before the next application of the transient. I have seen where people try to automate these transient applications and wind up making a burst of 5. I think this breaks the spirit of what is expected. I have seen the automatic test blow through them so fast that you cannot even tell what happened. I insist on manual application of transient waveforms.

Item 8 Some things can be automated. For instance , the slow sweep and dwell of audio frequncy ripple is OK if you are still able to properly monitor the equipment.

Item 9. In MIL-STD-704 people get confused because the first battery of tests are not about how the unit operates with voltage corruptions, but rather it is an assessment of how your unit might affect the power bus. For low power equipment always fight for these things to be characterized but not specified. EVERY TIME I test any of these items to a spec it fails....Especially inrush current. Just characterize it!

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)....Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 14. I have an old picker MRI coil driver amp. I use this in conjunction with an arbitrary waveform generator. This picker amp is a very high current OP-AMP that can also generate high voltages ( about 90 -100V). It is a VERY impressive thing. It has a BW of maybe 200 KHz -- although I have not explicitly looked at that. I one time dropped the output on a copper table and the banana plug was obliterated. The picker amp could have cared less. You can buy the amplifier with all the waveforms built in, but I prefer to roll my own with my trusty picker amplifier. Frequently a customer wants a particular waveform run (The old we got burned by that once 20 years ago and never again thingy) and the generator with all the "canned waveforms" does not have it so you have to roll your own anyway. It is so much easier to make slight voltage tweeks to the AWG than to tweek the canned waveforms.
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 7:24:13 AM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
Over the last few years the RF design work in my company has dried up and I have been frequently assigned to power supply testing (and some design) per MIL-STD-704 and DO-160.

Here goes.....
Item 1.

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?
A. Aside from working over the specified input voltages and conditions ("normal operation" - which have a few subtleties) the important thing is that if 28V (typical nominal voltage for my category of equipment) is present on the input the box better be working. It is surprising how difficult that simple requirement is to achieve. The testing regiment requires the unit to be put through many types of over/under voltage tests that will take the box down and then the requirement is that the unit re-powers up without user intervention and works correctly. This is not a trivial requirement. Much of the testing really revolves around the standard's notion that this is not a trivial requirement.

---As an aside , one aircraft manufacturer requires additional tests above and beyond those in DO-160. In one case they require 8 waveforms that impose glitches on the startup voltage when powering up. Sure enough, we ran these waveforms and one of their sequences locked our unit up (power was applied to the terminals and the unit was latched up and required user intervention to power it off and back on to get it to work).

Many (most) of our products require a write to flash memory on power down......oh boy , this requires a lot of attention to get it right.

Item 2.... Just run the waveforms.....OK, I have had to work real hard, at times, to educate my management that most of the time I find a problem it is in the setting up of the required waveforms. Say I have an undervoltage requirement of 12 Volts and as I am setting it up I apply 11 volts and the unit locks up. The first thing a manager tries to do (until properly educated....fortunately my mangers do try to do the right thing....most of the time) is to ask if the unit works with the specified waveform and I have to answer yes.....but.....The real purpose of the test is to make you look at the unit 100 different ways to Sunday to see if the unit latches up and part of the process is the setup variations that will frequently be where the sweet (sour) spot is. So I have to go back and remind them that if I can have 28V appllied to the box and it is latched up it really does not matter what I did to the unit before ---the box not adequate for an aircraft. (of course this whatever you do are within reasonable guidelines....undervoltages, short duration overvoltages and some ripple on the input voltage). When a manager tries to tell me to just run the waveforms I ask him if we can have this discussion with the customer to get clarification.....99% of the time that forces the required (and painful) design changes.

Item 3. Power input is a big deal to aircaft manufacturers. If you think MIL-STD-704/DO-160 is rigorous you should see what one well known aircraft manufacturer in France requires in addition to DO-160. It takes weeks to run the tests.....They do not want a box to latch up on their aircraft

Item 4. Normal operation.... These are the voltage variations that are applied that the unit is expected to work through. The aircraft manufacturers HATE HATE HATE latchups, but they also do not like the unit temporarily shutting off when it should not shut off. These normal operation requirements revolve around3 basic things 1. the unit will stay powered up for 200 ms (this can vary) when power drops below a specified voltage (hold-up cap required) 2. The unit will stay powered up when over voltages are less than 200 ms 3. The unit will operate through various audio frequencies imposed on top of the DC voltage. 4. The unit will operate from typically 16or18V to approximately 29-33 volts (each unit will have these nailed down exactly in a spec)

Item 5. All the other stresses are abnormal conditions and they should not cause the unit to latch up (per above) and also not damage the unit (OK thats obvious, but it is explicitly stated and required).

Item 6. Ideal diodes, they are not so ideal. I have seen designs where an Ideal diode (smart FET) is used instead of a schottky diode on the input. Yeah they work for negative voltages....but About those Audio frequencies imposed on the DC lines..... , they walk right through the ideal diode. I am of the persuasion to use a schottky diode with a large capacitor after it. This will not allow internal resonances to develop which can cause many amps of current to circulate through the input circuitry. Take the 0.5V hit on efficiency. The real diode is so much nicer (do note I am coming at this for units that are 30W or less, usually less).

Item 7. Application of transients. MIL-STD-704 typically requires 5 applications of a particular interrupt (for instance) waveform. I insist on doing each one manually and slowly. Apply and observe before the next application of the transient. I have seen where people try to automate these transient applications and wind up making a burst of 5. I think this breaks the spirit of what is expected. I have seen the automatic test blow through them so fast that you cannot even tell what happened. I insist on manual application of transient waveforms.

Item 8 Some things can be automated. For instance , the slow sweep and dwell of audio frequncy ripple is OK if you are still able to properly monitor the equipment.

Item 9. In MIL-STD-704 people get confused because the first battery of tests are not about how the unit operates with voltage corruptions, but rather it is an assessment of how your unit might affect the power bus. For low power equipment always fight for these things to be characterized but not specified. EVERY TIME I test any of these items to a spec it fails....Especially inrush current. Just characterize it!

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)....Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 16. Test procedures and reports. I could make a separate post on this.....Engineers (young ones rightfully so, I think) hate writing and testing requires a lot (A LOT) of thought to what is going to be tested and how to go about doing it. Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not get bogged down by writing. But, sooner or later, I do not believe you are a good engineer if you cannot write a good test procedure. A good procedure is based upon the right data being taken and the right setups. Engineers are normally not good at writing and unfortunately in many corporations the procedure writer is the "lesser" engineer, but that is a bad wrap ( I have been on both sides ). If you can get past the lesser engineer thing you can learn to use your willingness to write procedures to your (and the programs ) advantage. The thing about procedures, is that nobody wants to look at them until the end of the program, so if you are good, you can write the procedures to force things that you know are best for the program. In many respects, writing the tests allows a control over the design the is very powerful and goes unchallenged because a design engineer will design to the test if you can get it through quick enough. I have learned (I am late in my career so I am taking what gets me over the finish line) to embrace writing procedures and reports and to use them to my (and the programs ) advantage
 
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 06:32:30 -0700 (PDT), blocher@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 7:24:13 AM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
Over the last few years the RF design work in my company has dried up and I have been frequently assigned to power supply testing (and some design) per MIL-STD-704 and DO-160.

Here goes.....
Item 1.

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?
A. Aside from working over the specified input voltages and conditions ("normal operation" - which have a few subtleties) the important thing is that if 28V (typical nominal voltage for my category of equipment) is present on the input the box better be working. It is surprising how difficult that simple requirement is to achieve. The testing regiment requires the unit to be put through many types of over/under voltage tests that will take the box down and then the requirement is that the unit re-powers up without user intervention and works correctly. This is not a trivial requirement. Much of the testing really revolves around the standard's notion that this is not a trivial requirement.

---As an aside , one aircraft manufacturer requires additional tests above and beyond those in DO-160. In one case they require 8 waveforms that impose glitches on the startup voltage when powering up. Sure enough, we ran these waveforms and one of their sequences locked our unit up (power was applied to the terminals and the unit was latched up and required user intervention to power it off and back on to get it to work).

Many (most) of our products require a write to flash memory on power down.....oh boy , this requires a lot of attention to get it right.

Item 2.... Just run the waveforms.....OK, I have had to work real hard, at times, to educate my management that most of the time I find a problem it is in the setting up of the required waveforms. Say I have an undervoltage requirement of 12 Volts and as I am setting it up I apply 11 volts and the unit locks up. The first thing a manager tries to do (until properly educated....fortunately my mangers do try to do the right thing....most of the time) is to ask if the unit works with the specified waveform and I have to answer yes.....but.....The real purpose of the test is to make you look at the unit 100 different ways to Sunday to see if the unit latches up and part of the process is the setup variations that will frequently be where the sweet (sour) spot is. So I have to go back and remind them that if I can have 28V appllied to the box and it is latched up it really does not matter what I did to the unit before ---the box not adequate for an aircraft. (of course this whatever
you do are within reasonable guidelines....undervoltages, short duration overvoltages and some ripple on the input voltage). When a manager tries to tell me to just run the waveforms I ask him if we can have this discussion with the customer to get clarification.....99% of the time that forces the required (and painful) design changes.

Item 3. Power input is a big deal to aircaft manufacturers. If you think MIL-STD-704/DO-160 is rigorous you should see what one well known aircraft manufacturer in France requires in addition to DO-160. It takes weeks to run the tests.....They do not want a box to latch up on their aircraft

Item 4. Normal operation.... These are the voltage variations that are applied that the unit is expected to work through. The aircraft manufacturers HATE HATE HATE latchups, but they also do not like the unit temporarily shutting off when it should not shut off. These normal operation requirements revolve around3 basic things 1. the unit will stay powered up for 200 ms (this can vary) when power drops below a specified voltage (hold-up cap required) 2. The unit will stay powered up when over voltages are less than 200 ms 3. The unit will operate through various audio frequencies imposed on top of the DC voltage. 4. The unit will operate from typically 16or18V to approximately 29-33 volts (each unit will have these nailed down exactly in a spec)

Item 5. All the other stresses are abnormal conditions and they should not cause the unit to latch up (per above) and also not damage the unit (OK thats obvious, but it is explicitly stated and required).

Item 6. Ideal diodes, they are not so ideal. I have seen designs where an Ideal diode (smart FET) is used instead of a schottky diode on the input. Yeah they work for negative voltages....but About those Audio frequencies imposed on the DC lines..... , they walk right through the ideal diode. I am of the persuasion to use a schottky diode with a large capacitor after it. This will not allow internal resonances to develop which can cause many amps of current to circulate through the input circuitry. Take the 0.5V hit on efficiency. The real diode is so much nicer (do note I am coming at this for units that are 30W or less, usually less).

Item 7. Application of transients. MIL-STD-704 typically requires 5 applications of a particular interrupt (for instance) waveform. I insist on doing each one manually and slowly. Apply and observe before the next application of the transient. I have seen where people try to automate these transient applications and wind up making a burst of 5. I think this breaks the spirit of what is expected. I have seen the automatic test blow through them so fast that you cannot even tell what happened. I insist on manual application of transient waveforms.

Item 8 Some things can be automated. For instance , the slow sweep and dwell of audio frequncy ripple is OK if you are still able to properly monitor the equipment.

Item 9. In MIL-STD-704 people get confused because the first battery of tests are not about how the unit operates with voltage corruptions, but rather it is an assessment of how your unit might affect the power bus. For low power equipment always fight for these things to be characterized but not specified. EVERY TIME I test any of these items to a spec it fails....Especially inrush current. Just characterize it!

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)...Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 16. Test procedures and reports. I could make a separate post on this....Engineers (young ones rightfully so, I think) hate writing and testing requires a lot (A LOT) of thought to what is going to be tested and how to go about doing it. Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not get bogged down by writing. But, sooner or later, I do not believe you are a good engineer if you cannot write a good test procedure. A good procedure is based upon the right data being taken and the right setups. Engineers are normally not good at writing and unfortunately in many corporations the procedure writer is the "lesser" engineer, but that is a bad wrap ( I have been on both sides ). If you can get past the lesser engineer thing you can learn to use your willingness to write procedures to your (and the programs ) advantage. The thing about procedures, is that nobody wants to look at them until the end of the program, so if you are good, you can write the
procedures to force things that you know are best for the program. In many respects, writing the tests allows a control over the design the is very powerful and goes unchallenged because a design engineer will design to the test if you can get it through quick enough. I have learned (I am late in my career so I am taking what gets me over the finish line) to embrace writing procedures and reports and to use them to my (and the programs ) advantage

Sounds like they (at least) let you go home on the weekends.

It's when they lock you up in a box until the test report has all
check marks, that your metal is really tested.

RL
 
It's when they lock you up in a box until the test report has all
check marks, that your metal is really tested.
.......
........
Testing for checkmarks....i could have had an item dedicated to that.
 
bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote in news:42c50f86-f684-4a63-bc70-
644d9fddeb4c@googlegroups.com:

It's when they lock you up in a box until the test report has all
check marks, that your metal is really tested.
......
.......
Testing for checkmarks....i could have had an item dedicated to that.

I think he shouldn't meddle around trying to convince folks he is
intelligent.

It's a mettle thing.
 
On 9/28/19 7:24 AM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

> Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)...Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

If the converter doesn't have soft-start intrinsically can't you say
apply a PWM "ramp" to the shutdown pin (or equivalent?) 40 cent 8 bit
micro like the ATTiny series has PWM output and can do over-the-rail
differential ADC to sense current, works great
 
On 9/28/19 9:32 AM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)...Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 16. Test procedures and reports. I could make a separate post on this....Engineers (young ones rightfully so, I think) hate writing and testing requires a lot (A LOT) of thought to what is going to be tested and how to go about doing it. Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not get bogged down by writing. But, sooner or later, I do not believe you are a good engineer if you cannot write a good test procedure. A good procedure is based upon the right data being taken and the right setups. Engineers are normally not good at writing and unfortunately in many corporations the procedure writer is the "lesser" engineer, but that is a bad wrap ( I have been on both sides ). If you can get past the lesser engineer thing you can learn to use your willingness to write procedures to your (and the programs ) advantage. The thing about procedures, is that nobody wants to look at them until the end of the program, so if you are good, you can write the procedures to force things that you know are best for the program. In many respects, writing the tests allows a control over the design the is very powerful and goes unchallenged because a design engineer will design to the test if you can get it through quick enough. I have learned (I am late in my career so I am taking what gets me over the finish line) to embrace writing procedures and reports and to use them to my (and the programs ) advantage

A young adult going to a 4 year college and not coming out of it knowing
how to read & write much better than when they went in is not money
well-spent.

An engineer who is an engineering genius but cannot express him/herself
in a way that other people understand easily...their value drops
considerably. Same for doctor, lawyer, and many other white-collar fields.

"Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not
get bogged down by writing." So a guy comes fresh out of college and he
doesn't know how to engineer and doesn't know how to write, either?
Gosh, what are we paying this fella for, anyway? Way easier to train a
grad with an excellent command of English to be a good test engineer
than vice versa I think...
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 12:05:40 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 9/28/19 9:32 AM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)...Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 16. Test procedures and reports. I could make a separate post on this....Engineers (young ones rightfully so, I think) hate writing and testing requires a lot (A LOT) of thought to what is going to be tested and how to go about doing it. Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not get bogged down by writing. But, sooner or later, I do not believe you are a good engineer if you cannot write a good test procedure. A good procedure is based upon the right data being taken and the right setups. Engineers are normally not good at writing and unfortunately in many corporations the procedure writer is the "lesser" engineer, but that is a bad wrap ( I have been on both sides ). If you can get past the lesser engineer thing you can learn to use your willingness to write procedures to your (and the programs ) advantage. The thing about procedures, is that nobody wants to look at them until the end of the program, so if you are good, you can write the procedures to force things that you know are best for the program. In many respects, writing the tests allows a control over the design the is very powerful and goes unchallenged because a design engineer will design to the test if you can get it through quick enough. I have learned (I am late in my career so I am taking what gets me over the finish line) to embrace writing procedures and reports and to use them to my (and the programs ) advantage


A young adult going to a 4 year college and not coming out of it knowing
how to read & write much better than when they went in is not money
well-spent.

An engineer who is an engineering genius but cannot express him/herself
in a way that other people understand easily...their value drops
considerably. Same for doctor, lawyer, and many other white-collar fields..

"Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not
get bogged down by writing." So a guy comes fresh out of college and he
doesn't know how to engineer and doesn't know how to write, either?
Gosh, what are we paying this fella for, anyway? Way easier to train a
grad with an excellent command of English to be a good test engineer
than vice versa I think...

I don't think most engineers wish to go into testing at the beginning of their career. I think they should learn the nuts and bolts for 10 years or so.. Well, actually I think most would prefer to do the nuts and bolts. Most engineers are known for their in-ability to write. But you are correct, at some point one diminishes their value if they cannot write. Writing is where all the corporate persuasion takes place and if you are not in the persuasion game then you are not a player.
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 12:34:42 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 9/28/19 7:24 AM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)...Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

If the converter doesn't have soft-start intrinsically can't you say
apply a PWM "ramp" to the shutdown pin (or equivalent?) 40 cent 8 bit
micro like the ATTiny series has PWM output and can do over-the-rail
differential ADC to sense current, works great

These inrush currents are the very fast loading of the capacitors on the input power rail. They occur in the 100's of usec time frame and are all done before the power supplies are even close to being at regulation.
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 4:00:48 PM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 3:55:53 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:05:34 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/28/19 9:32 AM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)...Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 16. Test procedures and reports. I could make a separate post on this....Engineers (young ones rightfully so, I think) hate writing and testing requires a lot (A LOT) of thought to what is going to be tested and how to go about doing it. Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not get bogged down by writing. But, sooner or later, I do not believe you are a good engineer if you cannot write a good test procedure. A good procedure is based upon the right data being taken and the right setups. Engineers are normally not good at writing and unfortunately in many corporations the procedure writer is the "lesser" engineer, but that is a bad wrap ( I have been on both sides ). If you can get past the lesser engineer thing you can learn to use your willingness to write procedures to your (and the programs ) advantage. The thing about procedures, is that nobody wants to look at them until the end of the program, so if you are good, you can write the
procedures to force things that you know are best for the program. In many respects, writing the tests allows a control over the design the is very powerful and goes unchallenged because a design engineer will design to the test if you can get it through quick enough. I have learned (I am late in my career so I am taking what gets me over the finish line) to embrace writing procedures and reports and to use them to my (and the programs ) advantage


A young adult going to a 4 year college and not coming out of it knowing
how to read & write much better than when they went in is not money
well-spent.

An engineer who is an engineering genius but cannot express him/herself
in a way that other people understand easily...their value drops
considerably. Same for doctor, lawyer, and many other white-collar fields.

"Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not
get bogged down by writing."

Our trade is to produce documents.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

Yes, engineers are the keepers and producers of documents , and yet, I do not recall one time in this forum where you pointed us to a photo of your latest and greatest document.

Let me elaborate. you have shown various napkin style schematics... I am not sure why I am getting pushback on the point that young engineers ought to focus on design and building things and not be pushed into procedure writing when they fist get out of school. I cannot imagine a young engineer who would choose writing a procedure over building a circuit. Does a SW guy want to write code or write verification cases? It takes years to get good at engineering and I do not think writing is the best place to put a young engineer. I am surprised I am getting challenged on that
 
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:05:34 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/28/19 9:32 AM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)...Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 16. Test procedures and reports. I could make a separate post on this....Engineers (young ones rightfully so, I think) hate writing and testing requires a lot (A LOT) of thought to what is going to be tested and how to go about doing it. Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not get bogged down by writing. But, sooner or later, I do not believe you are a good engineer if you cannot write a good test procedure. A good procedure is based upon the right data being taken and the right setups. Engineers are normally not good at writing and unfortunately in many corporations the procedure writer is the "lesser" engineer, but that is a bad wrap ( I have been on both sides ). If you can get past the lesser engineer thing you can learn to use your willingness to write procedures to your (and the programs ) advantage. The thing about procedures, is that nobody wants to look at them until the end of the program, so if you are good, you can write the
procedures to force things that you know are best for the program. In many respects, writing the tests allows a control over the design the is very powerful and goes unchallenged because a design engineer will design to the test if you can get it through quick enough. I have learned (I am late in my career so I am taking what gets me over the finish line) to embrace writing procedures and reports and to use them to my (and the programs ) advantage


A young adult going to a 4 year college and not coming out of it knowing
how to read & write much better than when they went in is not money
well-spent.

An engineer who is an engineering genius but cannot express him/herself
in a way that other people understand easily...their value drops
considerably. Same for doctor, lawyer, and many other white-collar fields.

"Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not
get bogged down by writing."

Our trade is to produce documents.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 3:55:53 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:05:34 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/28/19 9:32 AM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)...Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 16. Test procedures and reports. I could make a separate post on this....Engineers (young ones rightfully so, I think) hate writing and testing requires a lot (A LOT) of thought to what is going to be tested and how to go about doing it. Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not get bogged down by writing. But, sooner or later, I do not believe you are a good engineer if you cannot write a good test procedure. A good procedure is based upon the right data being taken and the right setups. Engineers are normally not good at writing and unfortunately in many corporations the procedure writer is the "lesser" engineer, but that is a bad wrap ( I have been on both sides ). If you can get past the lesser engineer thing you can learn to use your willingness to write procedures to your (and the programs ) advantage. The thing about procedures, is that nobody wants to look at them until the end of the program, so if you are good, you can write the
procedures to force things that you know are best for the program. In many respects, writing the tests allows a control over the design the is very powerful and goes unchallenged because a design engineer will design to the test if you can get it through quick enough. I have learned (I am late in my career so I am taking what gets me over the finish line) to embrace writing procedures and reports and to use them to my (and the programs ) advantage


A young adult going to a 4 year college and not coming out of it knowing
how to read & write much better than when they went in is not money
well-spent.

An engineer who is an engineering genius but cannot express him/herself
in a way that other people understand easily...their value drops
considerably. Same for doctor, lawyer, and many other white-collar fields.

"Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not
get bogged down by writing."

Our trade is to produce documents.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

Yes, engineers are the keepers and producers of documents , and yet, I do not recall one time in this forum where you pointed us to a photo of your latest and greatest document.
 
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 13:00:42 -0700 (PDT), blocher@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 3:55:53 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:05:34 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/28/19 9:32 AM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)...Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Item 16. Test procedures and reports. I could make a separate post on this....Engineers (young ones rightfully so, I think) hate writing and testing requires a lot (A LOT) of thought to what is going to be tested and how to go about doing it. Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not get bogged down by writing. But, sooner or later, I do not believe you are a good engineer if you cannot write a good test procedure. A good procedure is based upon the right data being taken and the right setups. Engineers are normally not good at writing and unfortunately in many corporations the procedure writer is the "lesser" engineer, but that is a bad wrap ( I have been on both sides ). If you can get past the lesser engineer thing you can learn to use your willingness to write procedures to your (and the programs ) advantage. The thing about procedures, is that nobody wants to look at them until the end of the program, so if you are good, you can write
the
procedures to force things that you know are best for the program. In many respects, writing the tests allows a control over the design the is very powerful and goes unchallenged because a design engineer will design to the test if you can get it through quick enough. I have learned (I am late in my career so I am taking what gets me over the finish line) to embrace writing procedures and reports and to use them to my (and the programs ) advantage


A young adult going to a 4 year college and not coming out of it knowing
how to read & write much better than when they went in is not money
well-spent.

An engineer who is an engineering genius but cannot express him/herself
in a way that other people understand easily...their value drops
considerably. Same for doctor, lawyer, and many other white-collar fields.

"Younger engineers I think should be allowed to learn the trade and not
get bogged down by writing."

Our trade is to produce documents.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

Yes, engineers are the keepers and producers of documents , and yet, I do not recall one time in this forum where you pointed us to a photo of your latest and greatest document.

Photo of a document? Sort of like the cover of a book?

I have posted lots of photos of circuits and experiments. And posted
many Spice sims.

You can go to our web site and download manuals. I wrote a lot of
them.

I see so many ugly Spice sims, with nothing to indicate what they are
or who created them when. Just a heap of parts. And I see a lot of
spreadsheets full of numbers, again no author, date, context, or a
simple statement of what it *is*. Sims and spreadsheets like that will
be useless in a year or so; nobody will remember what they were for.

I have to teach the kids this stuff. And how to draw, and how to read
drawings. I guess EE schools don't teach engineering graphics any
more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcfRMpLqSmg







--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 7:24:13 AM UTC-4, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
Over the last few years the RF design work in my company has dried up and I have been frequently assigned to power supply testing (and some design) per MIL-STD-704 and DO-160.

Here goes.....
Item 1.

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?
A. Aside from working over the specified input voltages and conditions ("normal operation" - which have a few subtleties) the important thing is that if 28V (typical nominal voltage for my category of equipment) is present on the input the box better be working. It is surprising how difficult that simple requirement is to achieve. The testing regiment requires the unit to be put through many types of over/under voltage tests that will take the box down and then the requirement is that the unit re-powers up without user intervention and works correctly. This is not a trivial requirement. Much of the testing really revolves around the standard's notion that this is not a trivial requirement.

---As an aside , one aircraft manufacturer requires additional tests above and beyond those in DO-160. In one case they require 8 waveforms that impose glitches on the startup voltage when powering up. Sure enough, we ran these waveforms and one of their sequences locked our unit up (power was applied to the terminals and the unit was latched up and required user intervention to power it off and back on to get it to work).

Many (most) of our products require a write to flash memory on power down......oh boy , this requires a lot of attention to get it right.

Item 2.... Just run the waveforms.....OK, I have had to work real hard, at times, to educate my management that most of the time I find a problem it is in the setting up of the required waveforms. Say I have an undervoltage requirement of 12 Volts and as I am setting it up I apply 11 volts and the unit locks up. The first thing a manager tries to do (until properly educated....fortunately my mangers do try to do the right thing....most of the time) is to ask if the unit works with the specified waveform and I have to answer yes.....but.....The real purpose of the test is to make you look at the unit 100 different ways to Sunday to see if the unit latches up and part of the process is the setup variations that will frequently be where the sweet (sour) spot is. So I have to go back and remind them that if I can have 28V appllied to the box and it is latched up it really does not matter what I did to the unit before ---the box not adequate for an aircraft. (of course this whatever you do are within reasonable guidelines....undervoltages, short duration overvoltages and some ripple on the input voltage). When a manager tries to tell me to just run the waveforms I ask him if we can have this discussion with the customer to get clarification.....99% of the time that forces the required (and painful) design changes.

Item 3. Power input is a big deal to aircaft manufacturers. If you think MIL-STD-704/DO-160 is rigorous you should see what one well known aircraft manufacturer in France requires in addition to DO-160. It takes weeks to run the tests.....They do not want a box to latch up on their aircraft

Item 4. Normal operation.... These are the voltage variations that are applied that the unit is expected to work through. The aircraft manufacturers HATE HATE HATE latchups, but they also do not like the unit temporarily shutting off when it should not shut off. These normal operation requirements revolve around3 basic things 1. the unit will stay powered up for 200 ms (this can vary) when power drops below a specified voltage (hold-up cap required) 2. The unit will stay powered up when over voltages are less than 200 ms 3. The unit will operate through various audio frequencies imposed on top of the DC voltage. 4. The unit will operate from typically 16or18V to approximately 29-33 volts (each unit will have these nailed down exactly in a spec)

Item 5. All the other stresses are abnormal conditions and they should not cause the unit to latch up (per above) and also not damage the unit (OK thats obvious, but it is explicitly stated and required).

Item 6. Ideal diodes, they are not so ideal. I have seen designs where an Ideal diode (smart FET) is used instead of a schottky diode on the input. Yeah they work for negative voltages....but About those Audio frequencies imposed on the DC lines..... , they walk right through the ideal diode. I am of the persuasion to use a schottky diode with a large capacitor after it. This will not allow internal resonances to develop which can cause many amps of current to circulate through the input circuitry. Take the 0.5V hit on efficiency. The real diode is so much nicer (do note I am coming at this for units that are 30W or less, usually less).

Item 7. Application of transients. MIL-STD-704 typically requires 5 applications of a particular interrupt (for instance) waveform. I insist on doing each one manually and slowly. Apply and observe before the next application of the transient. I have seen where people try to automate these transient applications and wind up making a burst of 5. I think this breaks the spirit of what is expected. I have seen the automatic test blow through them so fast that you cannot even tell what happened. I insist on manual application of transient waveforms.

Item 8 Some things can be automated. For instance , the slow sweep and dwell of audio frequncy ripple is OK if you are still able to properly monitor the equipment.

Item 9. In MIL-STD-704 people get confused because the first battery of tests are not about how the unit operates with voltage corruptions, but rather it is an assessment of how your unit might affect the power bus. For low power equipment always fight for these things to be characterized but not specified. EVERY TIME I test any of these items to a spec it fails....Especially inrush current. Just characterize it!

Item 10. Inrush current. On low power units fight, FIGHT, FIGHT against a hard spec. It will fail. Fight to characterize it. Low power stuff is not going to take down the aircraft power bus and your internal capacitors have to get charged up and yes, your EMI caps theoretically take infinite current for short durations to charge up. When you design around inrush you start to take away internal capacitance that you really want. The aircraft has to tranfer energy into your unit on power up. I think the aircraft manufacturers get that but the designers see a spec as a challenge and try to meet it (at the expense of inadequate internal capacitance or being in the crappy position of telling your management that you failed at test time)....Actually, the customer will probably give you relief on it (not on anything else though)so fight up front to avoid the headaches.

Item 11.....OK I guess I am done for now...Bye

Interesting...
 
On 9/28/19 9:12 AM, blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote:

<sniiiip>

TL;DR

If you broke that up into bite-size chunks, I think you'd get a much
better response.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top