Ramblings about Airborne Power supply design and testing

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 6:31:18 PM UTC-4, blo...@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 17: The link here :

https://www.ebay.com/c/21030870708

shows the picker gradient amplifier that I use to generate all kind of MIL-STD-704 compliant waveforms. These things are amazing! +/- 100 ish V @ 20 amp output and 200Khz BW. They are indestructible. you can drive this with a 2K AWG. If you have a calibrated scope and calibrated power meter (throw in required transformer for another 1K) you can be doing a lot of these tests for credit instead of going to a 3-5K/day test lab. And you can do all your own dry runs. You can also show your power supply designer where additional work is required :)

no... this is not my stuff for sale and this has not been a lead in to sell these items. But I do make a great recommendation for these bad boys :)
 
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 17: The link here :

https://www.ebay.com/c/21030870708

shows the picker gradient amplifier that I use to generate all kind of MIL-STD-704 compliant waveforms. These things are amazing! +/- 100 ish V @ 20 amp output and 200Khz BW. They are indestructible. you can drive this with a 2K AWG. If you have a calibrated scope and calibrated power meter (throw in required transformer for another 1K) you can be doing a lot of these tests for credit instead of going to a 3-5K/day test lab. And you can do all your own dry runs. You can also show your power supply designer where additional work is required :)
 
As I stated, I should have made item 16 a separate post, it really was not the meat of what i was trying to convey
 
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 13:05:42 -0700 (PDT), blocher@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

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...

And sheets of the schematics of actual products. And scope shots *in
focus* *with* post-its furnishing context. And screen caps of Spice
sims, and .asc files.


> 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.

They should learn to document their output properly, from day 1.

Don't college tests and lab reports note subject, author, date? They
can keep doing that when they get a job.


> I cannot imagine a young engineer who would choose writing a procedure over building a circuit.

I have no use for an engineer, of any age, who cannot transfer learned
knowledge to others in a disciplined way. I don't pay people to amuse
themselves privately. To "build a circuit" and not document it.


>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

If they can't document their work clearly, so that others can benefit,
they will never be good at engineering.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
Pay to privately amuse themselves? It is hard to learn phase noise and control theory and matching and noise budgets and DSP and simulation and all kind of nuts and bolts things. I am really glad that in the early part of my career the older guys let me work on that kind of design and did not stick me somewhere writing procedures. I think that is the essence of what i said.. I know i said that ultimately no engineer is very good if they cannot write a good procedure.
 
TL;DR


You and 7 billion other people on planet earth did no read it either. Thanks for weighing in though
 
So telling someone that TL-DR is helpful? Normally when i wish to help someone I read the content and then comment on the content. If I am immediately turned off I may be rude and tell them so, but I don't think I would ever think in my mind i did them a favor. Anyhow, I wrote this because i had an hour and wanted to add content to the forum about a topic i have something to contribute. Most of my design stuff i can't really discuss. Also i did it for myself because I may wish to recall these thoughts at some later time and now i can
 
On 9/28/19 7:03 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
TL;DR


You and 7 billion other people on planet earth did no read it either.
Thanks for weighing in though

You're entirely welcome. Unlike most of them (and you), I did offer a
helpful suggestion.

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
 
You have a very high opinion of yourself. I mean you seriously think telling someone you looked at what they wrote and immediately dismissed it because it was too long is offering help. Maybe I do not care,if PH disses my post. I do know tjat PH did not have the time to read it but he sure had the time to post about how he immediately dismissed it. I mean that is first rate help. How much do i owe you for this help?
 
>So telling someone that TL-DR is helpful?

So are you the OP or his mum? Otherwise, where do you get off, lecturing folks like that?

Since you apparently didn't get past the first line of my first post, allow me to spell it out.

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

Which I think is entirely true and reasonable. If you don't, oh, well.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
 
On 9/28/19 9:06 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
You have a very high opinion of yourself. I mean you seriously think telling someone you looked at what they wrote and immediately dismissed it because it was too long is offering help. Maybe I do not care,if PH disses my post. I do know tjat PH did not have the time to read it but he sure had the time to post about how he immediately dismissed it. I mean that is first rate help. How much do i owe you for this help?

Ah, so you're the OP via a sock puppet, got it. Have a nice day.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
 
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 08:11:32 -0700 (PDT), bulegoge@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

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.

Used to be, a good power supply kept working, in flames if necessary,
until the input source was removed.

Second-guessing the operator was considered bad form.

RL
 
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 15:31:12 -0700 (PDT), blocher@columbus.rr.com
wrote:
<snip>
Item 17: The link here :

https://www.ebay.com/c/21030870708

shows the picker gradient amplifier
snip

It shows automotive hood springs. Recheck the number.

You might do a pre-qual assurance, but the calibrations and ref
tracing required for most certifications are outside the budget of the
average design/test facility in power conversion field. This requires
deep pockets.

You might be disappointed at the 'expertise' offered at a competative
test facility. Recommend your product guru be there to hold hands to
avoid most issues.

For extraneous specs, in-house hardware capability will always be
useful, but likely with equipment bought surplus or on e-bay, as you
suggest.

RL
 
blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote in news:f4eedbfd-abea-4355-8303-
99ce30d44c81@googlegroups.com:

> I think they should learn the nuts and bolts for 10 years or so.

I think computer science 'kids' should have to start out with the
altair and then the XT, and upright video game processing and
function.

They are ALL jaded and want the latest and greatest hot 3D video
game capable screamer. They learn nothing of the nuts and bolts.

Maybe put them on ARCNET network, and slowly wean them up on faster
and faster hooks, all the while explaining the difference between a
22kB executable file (say NetHack), and a 4GB movie file. Until they
see how we had it. What was a good number over the modem? About 15
minutes per Megabyte. Once megabyte files were common.

My first 16MB of RAM was almost $600 used.

My first ONE GigaByte hard drive was half the size of a shoebox and
cost me $600 used. (OMG I feel old all of a sudden).
 
blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote in news:19082fcf-4f5e-4014-be3e-
f074f7dd9a04@googlegroups.com:

> Q. What do all of these test boil down to?

When I did HV power supply design for high altitude operation,
which was set to 37k ft for passenger craft and we had to do 70,000
ft spec for military gear.

So, we did a triple output anode supply for the HUGE 30" x 42" x
8" optical projector unit that was used on very old 747s way back
when a projector was the state of the art.

We also refitted and Tempest shielded (bottled that sucker up
tight)a 25 inch CRT display to make it into a high altitude aircraft
rated device that would not burn up on them. It was a canned display
inside a can for rack mounting. Way back in the big, bubble face
days too. Pre-vertical flat or anything. Behemoth!

The main consideration for us was thermal management in the thinner
cabin air. The math on the latent heat capacity of the air mass had
to be considered in cases where down here, the discreet device would
radiate sufficiently on its own, might need a finned sink and a
forced air flow placed onto it to suffice at the cabin pressure at
70,000 ft. Typically heated air too (of course). Dang! Double
difficult.
 
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:24:02 -0700 (PDT), blocher@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

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.

My latest hire, we sent directly to the test department for a few
months. Engineers need to design stuff that is easy to test and cal.
And they need to design test sets. He understands that now.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 11:04:46 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:24:02 -0700 (PDT), blocher@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

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.

My latest hire, we sent directly to the test department for a few
months. Engineers need to design stuff that is easy to test and cal.
And they need to design test sets. He understands that now.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

Please keep posting. I have more to learn from you than vice versa.
 
On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:22:56 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
blocher@columbus.rr.com wrote in news:19082fcf-4f5e-4014-be3e-
f074f7dd9a04@googlegroups.com:

Q. What do all of these test boil down to?

When I did HV power supply design for high altitude operation,
which was set to 37k ft for passenger craft and we had to do 70,000
ft spec for military gear.

So, we did a triple output anode supply for the HUGE 30" x 42" x
8" optical projector unit that was used on very old 747s way back
when a projector was the state of the art.

We also refitted and Tempest shielded (bottled that sucker up
tight)a 25 inch CRT display to make it into a high altitude aircraft
rated device that would not burn up on them. It was a canned display
inside a can for rack mounting. Way back in the big, bubble face
days too. Pre-vertical flat or anything. Behemoth!

The main consideration for us was thermal management in the thinner
cabin air. The math on the latent heat capacity of the air mass had
to be considered in cases where down here, the discreet device would
radiate sufficiently on its own, might need a finned sink and a
forced air flow placed onto it to suffice at the cabin pressure at
70,000 ft. Typically heated air too (of course). Dang! Double
difficult.

Sounds like a project that was fun to be on.
 
On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:06:00 AM UTC-4, legg wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 15:31:12 -0700 (PDT), blocher@columbus.rr.com
wrote:
snip

Item 17: The link here :

https://www.ebay.com/c/21030870708

shows the picker gradient amplifier
snip

It shows automotive hood springs. Recheck the number.

You might do a pre-qual assurance, but the calibrations and ref
tracing required for most certifications are outside the budget of the
average design/test facility in power conversion field. This requires
deep pockets.

You might be disappointed at the 'expertise' offered at a competative
test facility. Recommend your product guru be there to hold hands to
avoid most issues.

For extraneous specs, in-house hardware capability will always be
useful, but likely with equipment bought surplus or on e-bay, as you
suggest.

RL

That is bizarre. I continue to have the picker gradient amplifiers displayed.

For power input testing I have been able to do "for credit" testing because the only items that need to be in calibration is an o-scope and voltage meters....And a current probe. But for many other tests outside labs are needed.

I am trying to see if I can get my picker to run the AC waveforms and do for credit testing on those items too. ( I am running low power equip and that certainly makes doing it yourself easier)
 
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 09:38:15 -0700 (PDT), blocher@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 10:06:00 AM UTC-4, legg wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 15:31:12 -0700 (PDT), blocher@columbus.rr.com
wrote:
snip

Item 17: The link here :

https://www.ebay.com/c/21030870708

shows the picker gradient amplifier
snip

It shows automotive hood springs. Recheck the number.

You might do a pre-qual assurance, but the calibrations and ref
tracing required for most certifications are outside the budget of the
average design/test facility in power conversion field. This requires
deep pockets.

You might be disappointed at the 'expertise' offered at a competative
test facility. Recommend your product guru be there to hold hands to
avoid most issues.

For extraneous specs, in-house hardware capability will always be
useful, but likely with equipment bought surplus or on e-bay, as you
suggest.

RL

That is bizarre. I continue to have the picker gradient amplifiers displayed.

For power input testing I have been able to do "for credit" testing because the only items that need to be in calibration is an o-scope and voltage meters....And a current probe. But for many other tests outside labs are needed.

I am trying to see if I can get my picker to run the AC waveforms and do for credit testing on those items too. ( I am running low power equip and that certainly makes doing it yourself easier)

Perhaps item# 153158735347.

VMEbus?

I had a qual house failing preproduction systems for hipot after
humidity soak. Size and cost of small car.
They'd screwed up connector plugs for the test, even though we'd
provided them with the correct prewired and pretested test harnessing.
Change the test connector - no problem.

RL
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top