Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #743308 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-04-24 08:55 -0700 |
| Last post | 2026-05-06 15:58 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-24 08:55 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-25 02:14 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-24 09:39 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-25 03:32 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-24 10:46 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-25 14:44 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-25 08:03 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-26 02:28 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-25 10:56 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-26 21:27 +1000
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-26 21:11 +1000
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-26 21:16 +1000
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-26 21:50 +1000
Re: about electronics Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-04-25 17:52 +0000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-25 11:17 -0700
Re: about electronics Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-04-26 17:12 +0000
Re: about electronics someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-04-26 05:45 +0000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-26 03:29 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-26 20:55 +1000
Re: about electronics Someone <864c855e3d64399dc06fa30ebb75526c2c2e73db7216b16a3d4cf03e8a52ec3b@example.com> - 2026-04-28 20:15 +0000
Re: about electronics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-28 16:39 -0400
Re: about electronics someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-04-30 05:30 +0000
Re: about electronics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-30 11:19 +0000
Re: about electronics someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-05-05 18:15 +0000
Re: about electronics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-05-05 19:10 +0000
Re: about electronics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-04-26 12:53 +0000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-26 07:57 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-27 01:33 +1000
Re: about electronics Someone <864c855e3d64399dc06fa30ebb75526c2c2e73db7216b16a3d4cf03e8a52ec3b@example.com> - 2026-04-28 20:15 +0000
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-29 14:36 +1000
Re: about electronics Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-24 10:10 -0700
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-24 10:38 -0700
Re: about electronics Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-24 11:22 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-25 15:07 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-25 08:14 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-26 02:20 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-25 11:08 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-26 21:34 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-27 13:24 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-28 17:44 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-28 09:22 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-29 03:24 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-28 18:58 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-29 14:27 +1000
Re: about electronics bitrex <user@example.net> - 2026-04-24 23:20 -0400
Re: about electronics Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-24 21:50 -0700
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: about electronics Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-04-25 17:53 +0000
Re: about electronics Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-25 11:34 -0700
Re: about electronics Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-04-26 16:51 +0000
Re: about electronics someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-04-26 05:45 +0000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-26 03:39 -0700
Re: about electronics Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-28 15:38 -0700
Re: about electronics Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-28 15:57 -0700
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-28 19:07 -0700
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-29 10:39 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-30 22:43 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-30 07:19 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-01 00:41 +1000
Re: about electronics JM <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 15:54 +0100
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-30 09:27 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-01 03:26 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-30 11:38 -0700
Re: about electronics JM <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 18:45 +0100
Re: about electronics Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-04-30 13:00 -0700
Re: about electronics Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-01 21:24 +0000
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-02 16:27 +1000
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-30 11:40 -0700
Re: about electronics Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-03 14:35 -0700
Re: about electronics john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-05-03 14:41 -0700
Re: about electronics joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-05-03 19:54 -0400
Re: about electronics Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-03 17:53 -0700
Re: about electronics joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-05-04 19:54 -0400
Re: about electronics Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-04 17:33 -0700
Re: about electronics joegwinn@comcast.net - 2026-05-05 13:35 -0400
Re: about electronics Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-05 14:08 -0700
Re: about electronics Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-05-05 21:29 +0000
Re: about electronics Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-05-05 14:43 -0700
Re: about electronics Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-05-06 15:58 +1000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-28 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <osm1vkljfruma48ancfu6o719gjblhbot4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #743498 |
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:44:47 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >On 28/04/2026 6:24 am, john larkin wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 21:34:01 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 26/04/2026 4:08 am, john larkin wrote: >>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 02:20:43 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 26/04/2026 1:14 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 15:07:29 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 25/04/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:10:53 -0700, Buzz McCool >>>>>>>> <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2026 8:55 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Summary: very few people understand electronics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edit: Very few people understand electronics as well as you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A few years ago you had some posts with typical interview questions you used. >>>>>>>>> I collected these and sent them to my now freshly minted EE child who will >>>>>>>>> be starting work next month. So don't think that people aren't listening. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hope your kid understands electricity. Most ce/ee grads don't, and >>>>>>>> AI may make them into grocery store clerks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Probably not. AI is essentially mindless plagiarism. >>>>>>> It gets stuff right about 90% of the time, rather like junior engineers, >>>>>>> but needs to be backed up by people with deeper understanding >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you have more pearls of wisdom to share, please do. Years ago Phil shared >>>>>>>>> an article about how the front page of ceramic cap datasheets are a pack of >>>>>>>>> lies, which was very revealing to me. Even now in the 4th quarter of my career >>>>>>>>> I want to understand more about electronics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ceramic caps are awful. Buy a 22uF 10v cap and you might get 3 uF at >>>>>>>> 10v. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ceramic caps can be voltage dependent - but it does depend a lot on the >>>>>>> actual ceramic. Reading the data sheet carefully can be informative. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's rare for a ceramic cap data sheet to even mention the cap fallout >>>>>> with voltage, much less quantify it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> NPO ceramics are about as good as it gets. Ceramics with higher >>>>>>> dielectric constants offer more - but less predictable - capacitance. >>>>>> >>>>>> NPOs are great, but only come in small values. >>>>> >>>>> That's what I just said. >>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_capacitor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> does talk about this. Class 1 ceramic capacitors can be very stable. >>>>>>> Class 2 offers more capacitance but less stability, and Class 3 offers >>>>>>> loads of capacitance in a small package but it can vary a great deal. >>>>>>> John Larkin doesn't seem to read data sheets in detail, and he may have >>>>>>> bought a class 3 capacitor for a Class 2 application. >>>>>> >>>>>> Classes, and categories like Z5U, are very crude. One has to test caps >>>>>> when it matters, and then hope one can buy consistent parts. >>>>> >>>>> Crude they may be, but you didn't even mention that they existed. >>>>> >>>>>> We do buy big reels of custom-mixed caps with defined behaviors and >>>>>> tempcos. I had Capax make us 5000 pieces of 3.3 pF 0805's, with -4700 >>>>>> ppm/degC tempco. They came out close. We have a lifetime supply. >>>>> >>>>> That implies more technical expertise than you exhibited above. Did one >>>>> of your customers spell out the details, or that pesky Ph.D. that you fired? >>>> >>>> Neither. I use the NTCs to temperature compensate my instant-start LC >>>> oscillators. FR4 has a radical positive TC. I typically wind up with a >>>> parabolic frequency tempco, flat around 35c. >>>> >>>> Most things work like that. Compensate the first-order term, and >>>> what's left is mostly second-order. >>> >>> The instant start LC oscillators are a bad idea. You can get much better >>> timing out of a continuously running oscillator - you need two >>> interpolation circuits rather than just one to find out where your >>> interval started as well as where you want it to end, but the lower >>> jitter on the continuously running oscillator makes that a better choice. > ><snipped self-advertising> > > >> There are lots of ways to make a triggered delay with XO accuracy and >> jitter. Most involve a lot of insertion delay, and some have analog >> s/h drift that is work to correct for. > >The ones that involve less insertion delay are more interesting. > >> Many users want minimal insertion delay. > >Most of them want the timing ramp to start a few nanoseconds before they >know they need to start it. Thiotimoline would solve that problem, if it >existed. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline > >It can make more sense to redesign the experiment so that you can >control when it starts, but customers don't want to do that - they do >try to buy their way out of bad system design choices. > >> The instant-start oscillator is great in that respect. > >But not in others. > >> After it starts, we observe it for a while >> and phase-lock it to a good OCXO but keep the timing based on the >> trigger. > >Which inserts a delay. About 3 nanoseconds. If the triggered oscillator is accurate and low-jitter on its own, we can observe it and phase lock it at leisure. No rush. The HP 5359A time synthesizer used a triggered delay-line oscillator and used a slow complex heterodyne system to phase-lock it to an OCXO. Similar idea. But they didn't have access to fast ADCs and DACs like we do now. My favorite triggered oscillator uses a coaxial ceramic resonator, but that has lots of real-world problems. > >>> You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. >> >> That's clever. Did you make that up? > >Like the emitter-coupled monostable, it isn't original. > >> Here's our benchtop DDG. >> >> https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P500 >> >> One nice feature is the GaN output stages that make super fast clean >> pulses over a wide voltage range. > >Pity about the instant-start timing oscillator. OK, you design a DDG and show me how. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-29 03:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <10sqqgs$3a6h3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #743509 |
On 29/04/2026 2:22 am, john larkin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:44:47 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On 28/04/2026 6:24 am, john larkin wrote: >>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 21:34:01 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 26/04/2026 4:08 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 02:20:43 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 26/04/2026 1:14 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 15:07:29 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 25/04/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:10:53 -0700, Buzz McCool >>>>>>>>> <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2026 8:55 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Summary: very few people understand electronics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Edit: Very few people understand electronics as well as you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A few years ago you had some posts with typical interview questions you used. >>>>>>>>>> I collected these and sent them to my now freshly minted EE child who will >>>>>>>>>> be starting work next month. So don't think that people aren't listening. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope your kid understands electricity. Most ce/ee grads don't, and >>>>>>>>> AI may make them into grocery store clerks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Probably not. AI is essentially mindless plagiarism. >>>>>>>> It gets stuff right about 90% of the time, rather like junior engineers, >>>>>>>> but needs to be backed up by people with deeper understanding >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you have more pearls of wisdom to share, please do. Years ago Phil shared >>>>>>>>>> an article about how the front page of ceramic cap datasheets are a pack of >>>>>>>>>> lies, which was very revealing to me. Even now in the 4th quarter of my career >>>>>>>>>> I want to understand more about electronics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ceramic caps are awful. Buy a 22uF 10v cap and you might get 3 uF at >>>>>>>>> 10v. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ceramic caps can be voltage dependent - but it does depend a lot on the >>>>>>>> actual ceramic. Reading the data sheet carefully can be informative. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's rare for a ceramic cap data sheet to even mention the cap fallout >>>>>>> with voltage, much less quantify it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NPO ceramics are about as good as it gets. Ceramics with higher >>>>>>>> dielectric constants offer more - but less predictable - capacitance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NPOs are great, but only come in small values. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's what I just said. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_capacitor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> does talk about this. Class 1 ceramic capacitors can be very stable. >>>>>>>> Class 2 offers more capacitance but less stability, and Class 3 offers >>>>>>>> loads of capacitance in a small package but it can vary a great deal. >>>>>>>> John Larkin doesn't seem to read data sheets in detail, and he may have >>>>>>>> bought a class 3 capacitor for a Class 2 application. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Classes, and categories like Z5U, are very crude. One has to test caps >>>>>>> when it matters, and then hope one can buy consistent parts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Crude they may be, but you didn't even mention that they existed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> We do buy big reels of custom-mixed caps with defined behaviors and >>>>>>> tempcos. I had Capax make us 5000 pieces of 3.3 pF 0805's, with -4700 >>>>>>> ppm/degC tempco. They came out close. We have a lifetime supply. >>>>>> >>>>>> That implies more technical expertise than you exhibited above. Did one >>>>>> of your customers spell out the details, or that pesky Ph.D. that you fired? >>>>> >>>>> Neither. I use the NTCs to temperature compensate my instant-start LC >>>>> oscillators. FR4 has a radical positive TC. I typically wind up with a >>>>> parabolic frequency tempco, flat around 35c. >>>>> >>>>> Most things work like that. Compensate the first-order term, and >>>>> what's left is mostly second-order. >>>> >>>> The instant start LC oscillators are a bad idea. You can get much better >>>> timing out of a continuously running oscillator - you need two >>>> interpolation circuits rather than just one to find out where your >>>> interval started as well as where you want it to end, but the lower >>>> jitter on the continuously running oscillator makes that a better choice. >> >> <snipped self-advertising> >> >> >>> There are lots of ways to make a triggered delay with XO accuracy and >>> jitter. Most involve a lot of insertion delay, and some have analog >>> s/h drift that is work to correct for. >> >> The ones that involve less insertion delay are more interesting. >> >>> Many users want minimal insertion delay. >> >> Most of them want the timing ramp to start a few nanoseconds before they >> know they need to start it. Thiotimoline would solve that problem, if it >> existed. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline >> >> It can make more sense to redesign the experiment so that you can >> control when it starts, but customers don't want to do that - they do >> try to buy their way out of bad system design choices. >> >>> The instant-start oscillator is great in that respect. >> >> But not in others. >> >>> After it starts, we observe it for a while >>> and phase-lock it to a good OCXO but keep the timing based on the >>> trigger. >> >> Which inserts a delay. > > About 3 nanoseconds. If the triggered oscillator is accurate and > low-jitter on its own, we can observe it and phase lock it at leisure. > No rush. If you need to adjust the frequency, there's an accumulating phase error until you have got the frequency right. You can't get the frequency right in 3 nanoseconds. > The HP 5359A time synthesizer used a triggered delay-line oscillator > and used a slow complex heterodyne system to phase-lock it to an OCXO. > Similar idea. But they didn't have access to fast ADCs and DACs like > we do now. > > My favorite triggered oscillator uses a coaxial ceramic resonator, but > that has lots of real-world problems. > >>>> You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. >>> >>> That's clever. Did you make that up? >> >> Like the emitter-coupled monostable, it isn't original. >> >>> Here's our benchtop DDG. >>> >>> https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P500 >>> >>> One nice feature is the GaN output stages that make super fast clean >>> pulses over a wide voltage range. >> >> Pity about the instant-start timing oscillator. > > OK, you design a DDG and show me how. One designs a digital delay generator for a particular customer - if you are lucky, a group of customers. I haven't got the customers for whom I'd generate the system design. The one I did build was for the Cambridge Instruments stroboscopic electron microscope. It turned out to have elements in common with a two stage high precision mass spectrometer which I got involved with as stop gap job after the stroboscopic electron microscope job went sour. The system design for that was pretty horrible, and the customers apparently weren't open to redesigning their experiments to make the measurements easier. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-28 18:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7p2vktan5glu99odc76c4bi3pj0veo1rh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #743514 |
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 03:24:41 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >On 29/04/2026 2:22 am, john larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:44:47 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 28/04/2026 6:24 am, john larkin wrote: >>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 21:34:01 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 26/04/2026 4:08 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 02:20:43 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26/04/2026 1:14 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 15:07:29 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:10:53 -0700, Buzz McCool >>>>>>>>>> <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2026 8:55 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: very few people understand electronics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Edit: Very few people understand electronics as well as you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A few years ago you had some posts with typical interview questions you used. >>>>>>>>>>> I collected these and sent them to my now freshly minted EE child who will >>>>>>>>>>> be starting work next month. So don't think that people aren't listening. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I hope your kid understands electricity. Most ce/ee grads don't, and >>>>>>>>>> AI may make them into grocery store clerks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Probably not. AI is essentially mindless plagiarism. >>>>>>>>> It gets stuff right about 90% of the time, rather like junior engineers, >>>>>>>>> but needs to be backed up by people with deeper understanding >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you have more pearls of wisdom to share, please do. Years ago Phil shared >>>>>>>>>>> an article about how the front page of ceramic cap datasheets are a pack of >>>>>>>>>>> lies, which was very revealing to me. Even now in the 4th quarter of my career >>>>>>>>>>> I want to understand more about electronics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ceramic caps are awful. Buy a 22uF 10v cap and you might get 3 uF at >>>>>>>>>> 10v. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ceramic caps can be voltage dependent - but it does depend a lot on the >>>>>>>>> actual ceramic. Reading the data sheet carefully can be informative. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's rare for a ceramic cap data sheet to even mention the cap fallout >>>>>>>> with voltage, much less quantify it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NPO ceramics are about as good as it gets. Ceramics with higher >>>>>>>>> dielectric constants offer more - but less predictable - capacitance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NPOs are great, but only come in small values. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's what I just said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_capacitor >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> does talk about this. Class 1 ceramic capacitors can be very stable. >>>>>>>>> Class 2 offers more capacitance but less stability, and Class 3 offers >>>>>>>>> loads of capacitance in a small package but it can vary a great deal. >>>>>>>>> John Larkin doesn't seem to read data sheets in detail, and he may have >>>>>>>>> bought a class 3 capacitor for a Class 2 application. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Classes, and categories like Z5U, are very crude. One has to test caps >>>>>>>> when it matters, and then hope one can buy consistent parts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Crude they may be, but you didn't even mention that they existed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We do buy big reels of custom-mixed caps with defined behaviors and >>>>>>>> tempcos. I had Capax make us 5000 pieces of 3.3 pF 0805's, with -4700 >>>>>>>> ppm/degC tempco. They came out close. We have a lifetime supply. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That implies more technical expertise than you exhibited above. Did one >>>>>>> of your customers spell out the details, or that pesky Ph.D. that you fired? >>>>>> >>>>>> Neither. I use the NTCs to temperature compensate my instant-start LC >>>>>> oscillators. FR4 has a radical positive TC. I typically wind up with a >>>>>> parabolic frequency tempco, flat around 35c. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most things work like that. Compensate the first-order term, and >>>>>> what's left is mostly second-order. >>>>> >>>>> The instant start LC oscillators are a bad idea. You can get much better >>>>> timing out of a continuously running oscillator - you need two >>>>> interpolation circuits rather than just one to find out where your >>>>> interval started as well as where you want it to end, but the lower >>>>> jitter on the continuously running oscillator makes that a better choice. >>> >>> <snipped self-advertising> >>> >>> >>>> There are lots of ways to make a triggered delay with XO accuracy and >>>> jitter. Most involve a lot of insertion delay, and some have analog >>>> s/h drift that is work to correct for. >>> >>> The ones that involve less insertion delay are more interesting. >>> >>>> Many users want minimal insertion delay. >>> >>> Most of them want the timing ramp to start a few nanoseconds before they >>> know they need to start it. Thiotimoline would solve that problem, if it >>> existed. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline >>> >>> It can make more sense to redesign the experiment so that you can >>> control when it starts, but customers don't want to do that - they do >>> try to buy their way out of bad system design choices. >>> >>>> The instant-start oscillator is great in that respect. >>> >>> But not in others. >>> >>>> After it starts, we observe it for a while >>>> and phase-lock it to a good OCXO but keep the timing based on the >>>> trigger. >>> >>> Which inserts a delay. >> >> About 3 nanoseconds. If the triggered oscillator is accurate and >> low-jitter on its own, we can observe it and phase lock it at leisure. >> No rush. > >If you need to adjust the frequency, there's an accumulating phase error >until you have got the frequency right. You can't get the frequency >right in 3 nanoseconds. Sure. It might take 10 usec or so to observe and lock. If the LC is very good, it doesn't drift much meanwhile. I think the HP took much longer to close the loop. > >> The HP 5359A time synthesizer used a triggered delay-line oscillator >> and used a slow complex heterodyne system to phase-lock it to an OCXO. >> Similar idea. But they didn't have access to fast ADCs and DACs like >> we do now. >> >> My favorite triggered oscillator uses a coaxial ceramic resonator, but >> that has lots of real-world problems. >> >>>>> You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. >>>> >>>> That's clever. Did you make that up? >>> >>> Like the emitter-coupled monostable, it isn't original. >>> >>>> Here's our benchtop DDG. >>>> >>>> https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P500 >>>> >>>> One nice feature is the GaN output stages that make super fast clean >>>> pulses over a wide voltage range. >>> >>> Pity about the instant-start timing oscillator. >> >> OK, you design a DDG and show me how. > >One designs a digital delay generator for a particular customer - if you >are lucky, a group of customers. I haven't got the customers for whom >I'd generate the system design. The one I did build was for the >Cambridge Instruments stroboscopic electron microscope. How did that work? > >It turned out to have elements in common with a two stage high precision >mass spectrometer which I got involved with as stop gap job after the >stroboscopic electron microscope job went sour. The system design for >that was pretty horrible, and the customers apparently weren't open to >redesigning their experiments to make the measurements easier. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-29 14:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <10ss1c9$3l5f0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #743535 |
On 29/04/2026 11:58 am, john larkin wrote: > On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 03:24:41 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On 29/04/2026 2:22 am, john larkin wrote: >>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:44:47 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 28/04/2026 6:24 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 21:34:01 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 26/04/2026 4:08 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 02:20:43 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 26/04/2026 1:14 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 15:07:29 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2026 3:38 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:10:53 -0700, Buzz McCool >>>>>>>>>>> <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2026 8:55 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary: very few people understand electronics. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Edit: Very few people understand electronics as well as you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A few years ago you had some posts with typical interview questions you used. >>>>>>>>>>>> I collected these and sent them to my now freshly minted EE child who will >>>>>>>>>>>> be starting work next month. So don't think that people aren't listening. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I hope your kid understands electricity. Most ce/ee grads don't, and >>>>>>>>>>> AI may make them into grocery store clerks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Probably not. AI is essentially mindless plagiarism. >>>>>>>>>> It gets stuff right about 90% of the time, rather like junior engineers, >>>>>>>>>> but needs to be backed up by people with deeper understanding >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you have more pearls of wisdom to share, please do. Years ago Phil shared >>>>>>>>>>>> an article about how the front page of ceramic cap datasheets are a pack of >>>>>>>>>>>> lies, which was very revealing to me. Even now in the 4th quarter of my career >>>>>>>>>>>> I want to understand more about electronics. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ceramic caps are awful. Buy a 22uF 10v cap and you might get 3 uF at >>>>>>>>>>> 10v. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ceramic caps can be voltage dependent - but it does depend a lot on the >>>>>>>>>> actual ceramic. Reading the data sheet carefully can be informative. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's rare for a ceramic cap data sheet to even mention the cap fallout >>>>>>>>> with voltage, much less quantify it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NPO ceramics are about as good as it gets. Ceramics with higher >>>>>>>>>> dielectric constants offer more - but less predictable - capacitance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NPOs are great, but only come in small values. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's what I just said. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_capacitor >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> does talk about this. Class 1 ceramic capacitors can be very stable. >>>>>>>>>> Class 2 offers more capacitance but less stability, and Class 3 offers >>>>>>>>>> loads of capacitance in a small package but it can vary a great deal. >>>>>>>>>> John Larkin doesn't seem to read data sheets in detail, and he may have >>>>>>>>>> bought a class 3 capacitor for a Class 2 application. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Classes, and categories like Z5U, are very crude. One has to test caps >>>>>>>>> when it matters, and then hope one can buy consistent parts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Crude they may be, but you didn't even mention that they existed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We do buy big reels of custom-mixed caps with defined behaviors and >>>>>>>>> tempcos. I had Capax make us 5000 pieces of 3.3 pF 0805's, with -4700 >>>>>>>>> ppm/degC tempco. They came out close. We have a lifetime supply. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That implies more technical expertise than you exhibited above. Did one >>>>>>>> of your customers spell out the details, or that pesky Ph.D. that you fired? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Neither. I use the NTCs to temperature compensate my instant-start LC >>>>>>> oscillators. FR4 has a radical positive TC. I typically wind up with a >>>>>>> parabolic frequency tempco, flat around 35c. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most things work like that. Compensate the first-order term, and >>>>>>> what's left is mostly second-order. >>>>>> >>>>>> The instant start LC oscillators are a bad idea. You can get much better >>>>>> timing out of a continuously running oscillator - you need two >>>>>> interpolation circuits rather than just one to find out where your >>>>>> interval started as well as where you want it to end, but the lower >>>>>> jitter on the continuously running oscillator makes that a better choice. >>>> >>>> <snipped self-advertising> >>>> >>>> >>>>> There are lots of ways to make a triggered delay with XO accuracy and >>>>> jitter. Most involve a lot of insertion delay, and some have analog >>>>> s/h drift that is work to correct for. >>>> >>>> The ones that involve less insertion delay are more interesting. >>>> >>>>> Many users want minimal insertion delay. >>>> >>>> Most of them want the timing ramp to start a few nanoseconds before they >>>> know they need to start it. Thiotimoline would solve that problem, if it >>>> existed. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline >>>> >>>> It can make more sense to redesign the experiment so that you can >>>> control when it starts, but customers don't want to do that - they do >>>> try to buy their way out of bad system design choices. >>>> >>>>> The instant-start oscillator is great in that respect. >>>> >>>> But not in others. >>>> >>>>> After it starts, we observe it for a while >>>>> and phase-lock it to a good OCXO but keep the timing based on the >>>>> trigger. >>>> >>>> Which inserts a delay. >>> >>> About 3 nanoseconds. If the triggered oscillator is accurate and >>> low-jitter on its own, we can observe it and phase lock it at leisure. >>> No rush. >> >> If you need to adjust the frequency, there's an accumulating phase error >> until you have got the frequency right. You can't get the frequency >> right in 3 nanoseconds. > > Sure. It might take 10 usec or so to observe and lock. If the LC is > very good, it doesn't drift much meanwhile. > > I think the HP took much longer to close the loop. > > > >> >>> The HP 5359A time synthesizer used a triggered delay-line oscillator >>> and used a slow complex heterodyne system to phase-lock it to an OCXO. >>> Similar idea. But they didn't have access to fast ADCs and DACs like >>> we do now. >>> >>> My favorite triggered oscillator uses a coaxial ceramic resonator, but >>> that has lots of real-world problems. >>> >>>>>> You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. >>>>> >>>>> That's clever. Did you make that up? >>>> >>>> Like the emitter-coupled monostable, it isn't original. >>>> >>>>> Here's our benchtop DDG. >>>>> >>>>> https://highlandtechnology.com/Product/P500 >>>>> >>>>> One nice feature is the GaN output stages that make super fast clean >>>>> pulses over a wide voltage range. >>>> >>>> Pity about the instant-start timing oscillator. >>> >>> OK, you design a DDG and show me how. >> >> One designs a digital delay generator for a particular customer - if you >> are lucky, a group of customers. I haven't got the customers for whom >> I'd generate the system design. The one I did build was for the >> Cambridge Instruments stroboscopic electron microscope. > > How did that work? 800MHz local oscillator phase locked to a good 1OMHz crystal oscillator. We worked out when the start pulse had come in w.r.t. the local oscillator to about about 5psec (which took about 20nsec) and generated an output from the appropriate output from the 800MHz edge one cycle before the right time and generated a fine delay (to about 5psec). The first try at the 800MHz oscillator didn't work and it's quick and dirty replacement had 60osec of jitter. We could have done better if we'd had to but our sampling pulse was 500psec wide and the 10pec was just the boss indulging in specmanship, and we had more urgent problems to deal with. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <user@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-24 23:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <69ec32ef$1$24$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #743308 |
On 4/24/2026 11:55 AM, john larkin wrote: > I went to a couple of hardware meetups and pitch sessions this week. > > And I interview job and intern applicants. > > And I see electronic projects in the online mags and on Youtube. > > And there's SED of course. > > Summary: very few people understand electronics. > > > John Larkin > Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center > Lunatic Fringe Electronics But somehow electronics are everywhere, anyway!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-24 21:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10shh6d$jdc9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #743341 |
On 4/24/2026 8:20 PM, bitrex wrote: > But somehow electronics are everywhere, anyway! But fewer folks are involved in design. Look at how many prebuilt "modules" are folded into designs instead of designed from scratch. In the 70's, I'd start with an idea and a blank sheet of paper. When was the last time you designed a power supply from scratch? A counter? Trend has been in place for a very long time as "integration" reaches higher and higher levels. Folks don't even bother to put components on boards; easier to layer prebuilt boards and components -- in the name of "economy" (until, of course, you lose the ability to do those things!) The same is true in software; folks just throw big chunks of software together HOPING they understand how they work and their limitations -- because actually understanding would "cost" too much in time and personnel. Can you even FIND main()?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-25 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4jmpuktb910hbjgtv83rvok6smg79pfvf6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #743343 |
On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 21:50:18 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >On 4/24/2026 8:20 PM, bitrex wrote: >> But somehow electronics are everywhere, anyway! > >But fewer folks are involved in design. Look at how many >prebuilt "modules" are folded into designs instead of designed >from scratch. And there are dozens of identical Chinese products, all copies of some original design. >In the 70's, I'd start with an idea and a blank >sheet of paper. I still design on paper, D-size vellum. >When was the last time you designed a power >supply from scratch? A counter? I did both recently, including a little high votage supply. Autotransformer flyback driving a Cockcroft–Walton multiplier thingie with the voltage controlled by one pin from the RP2040 CPU. > >Trend has been in place for a very long time as "integration" >reaches higher and higher levels. Folks don't even bother >to put components on boards; easier to layer prebuilt boards >and components -- in the name of "economy" (until, of course, >you lose the ability to do those things!) It's fundamental that if someone can slap some boards together, then someone else can too. So the selling point becomes price, a race to the bottom. No thanks. I'm doing a board layout myself now. It's tricky enough that it's easier to do than to explain all the constraints to someone else. I don't even appreciate all the issues until I do it. I can change the schematic interactively with the layout. > >The same is true in software; folks just throw big chunks of >software together HOPING they understand how they work and >their limitations -- because actually understanding would >"cost" too much in time and personnel. Can you even FIND >main()? John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-25 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10siv2m$jn5v$4@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #743343 |
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: |-------------------------------------------------------------| |"The same is true in software; folks just throw big chunks of| |software together HOPING they understand how they work and | |their limitations [. . .]" | |-------------------------------------------------------------| Do they even hope so much, or instead do they hope that they might manage to compile and run software which has a chance of doing what they hope it will? (S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-25 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10sj1gc$11q7d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #743365 |
On 4/25/2026 10:53 AM, Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester wrote: > Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: > |-------------------------------------------------------------| > |"The same is true in software; folks just throw big chunks of| > |software together HOPING they understand how they work and | > |their limitations [. . .]" | > |-------------------------------------------------------------| > > Do they even hope so much, or instead do they hope that they might > manage to compile and run software which has a chance of doing what > they hope it will? Actually, it is more likely overconfidence on their part -- thinking they understand something when, in fact, they are largely clueless. "Enlightenment" possibly coming when they find they've shot themselves in the foot. [If something "unexpected" happens to a hardware design, it is quickly dismissed as "outside the recommended operating conditions". Wouldn't it be nice to claim that same excuse for "misbehaving" software?] Software is repeatable (in the absence of hardware errors). So, seeing "something" once means there is some condition that caused it to manifest. Your inability to reproduce THAT CONDITION doesn't mean the problem has gone away -- you're just being lazy and HOPING for the best. Do you see standard library (et al.) functions accounting for the fact that the address space "wraps"? Most will gladly do what they are told -- regardless of how nonsensical it may be (what does it mean to clear the last 100 bytes of memory starting at LAST_MEMORY_ADDRESS - 72?) Or, trying to print "(unsigned) -1" digits with leading zero suppression? Or, ... How much stack does your piece of code (AND EVERYTHING ON WHICH IT RELIES) *require*? Do you even know how to go about getting a DEFINITIVE answer? What (specifically) will happen if you exceed that value?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <thanks-to@Taf.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-26 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10slfpn$uf79$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #743370 |
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: |---------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Do you see standard library (et al.) functions accounting for | |the fact that the address space "wraps"? Most will gladly | |do what they are told -- regardless of how nonsensical it | |may be (what does it mean to clear the last 100 bytes of | |memory starting at LAST_MEMORY_ADDRESS - 72?) Or, trying to | |print "(unsigned) -1" digits with leading zero suppression? Or, ..."| |---------------------------------------------------------------------| Ada libraries behave well. (S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-26 05:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18a9d1e3361fa0ff$161761$2713986$4026de73@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #743308 |
The online stuff is a major disappointment. I don't know what this Stack Exchange thing is, but quite a few of their circuits that show up in searches are on the horrendous side. And from what I've seen, Reddit, another one I don't visit, is a mixed bag of some good and some bad. It can be a good starting point for further exploration. Whoever the audience is, they most certainly don't want an in-depth explanation of anything, or maybe don't know what in-depth means. What technology is the Sofar buoy using for gyroscopic orientation? It doesn't look all that cutting edge, and the website is useless. -- For full context, visit https://www.electrondepot.com/electrodesign/about-electronics-4401671-.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-26 03:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <h9qruk5ckr5ns4bmvneaksp0dgaei3bdk3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #743391 |
On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 05:45:01 +0000, someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> wrote: >The online stuff is a major disappointment. I don't know what this Stack Exchange thing is, but quite a few of their circuits that show up in searches are on the horrendous side. And from what I've seen, Reddit, another one I don't visit, is a mixed bag of some good and some bad. It can be a good starting point for further exploration. Whoever the audience is, they most certainly don't want an in-depth explanation of anything, or maybe don't know what in-depth means. > >What technology is the Sofar buoy using for gyroscopic orientation? It doesn't look all that cutting edge, and the website is useless. I talked to the founder, an interesting guy. He's a surfer and scuba diver and has always loved the ocean. I don't know the details. He is using an RP2040 CPU and, I think, cell phone type sensors. Their real focus is on the software. As is typical these days, computer screens outnumber soldering irons about 20:1. I saw the same thing touring the Cornell EE school. I counted 30 computer screens and one oscilloscope. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-28 15:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10srctv$3g7fi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #743399 |
On 4/26/2026 3:39 AM, john larkin wrote: > > Their real focus is on the software. As is typical these days, > computer screens outnumber soldering irons about 20:1. > > I saw the same thing touring the Cornell EE school. I counted 30 > computer screens and one oscilloscope. An interesting ratio. Maybe screens to bench power supplies would be a better measure of academic analog electronics rigor as oscopes in an educational setting might be the USB type that plugs into a computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-28 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10sre1d$3go58$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #743532 |
On 4/28/2026 3:38 PM, Buzz McCool wrote: > An interesting ratio. Maybe screens to bench power supplies would be > a better measure of academic analog electronics rigor as oscopes in > an educational setting might be the USB type that plugs into a > computer. There's far less demand for electrical engineers. Too much is "slap together" from prefabbed modules -- designed by a relative few people feeding multiple customer products. And, their efforts in typical product designs are relatively small (man-hours). By contrast, the software/firmware in YOUR product is almost certainly not the same as in some other product (even if you leverage something like a Linux kernel). Electrical Engineer salaries: 64,511 - 137,087 [$87,988] Software Engineer: 75,449 - 209,993 [132,417] (composite of a variety of market surveys) There is downward pressure on pay for entry/early career EE/SEs and considerable upward pressure on more experienced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-28 19:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7hp2vk15nn6jcgpvq26vf82nj304mhi5e2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #743534 |
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:57:47 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >On 4/28/2026 3:38 PM, Buzz McCool wrote: >> An interesting ratio. Maybe screens to bench power supplies would be >> a better measure of academic analog electronics rigor as oscopes in >> an educational setting might be the USB type that plugs into a >> computer. > >There's far less demand for electrical engineers. Too much is >"slap together" from prefabbed modules -- designed by a relative >few people feeding multiple customer products. And, their efforts >in typical product designs are relatively small (man-hours). > >By contrast, the software/firmware in YOUR product is almost >certainly not the same as in some other product (even if you >leverage something like a Linux kernel). > >Electrical Engineer salaries: 64,511 - 137,087 [$87,988] >Software Engineer: 75,449 - 209,993 [132,417] > >(composite of a variety of market surveys) > >There is downward pressure on pay for entry/early career >EE/SEs and considerable upward pressure on more experienced. > Around here, the average EE salary is $151K. The biggies, google and Apple, pay something like $300K. They bid against one another. What I meet is a lot of unemployed CE/EE people, coders, who don't make the cut for the biggies. https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech-layoffs/ John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-29 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <agg4vk142bi43pvn0bm6qm2c37cqo8aqgt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #743534 |
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:57:47 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >On 4/28/2026 3:38 PM, Buzz McCool wrote: >> An interesting ratio. Maybe screens to bench power supplies would be >> a better measure of academic analog electronics rigor as oscopes in >> an educational setting might be the USB type that plugs into a >> computer. > >There's far less demand for electrical engineers. Too much is >"slap together" from prefabbed modules -- designed by a relative >few people feeding multiple customer products. And, their efforts >in typical product designs are relatively small (man-hours). > >By contrast, the software/firmware in YOUR product is almost >certainly not the same as in some other product (even if you >leverage something like a Linux kernel). > >Electrical Engineer salaries: 64,511 - 137,087 [$87,988] >Software Engineer: 75,449 - 209,993 [132,417] > >(composite of a variety of market surveys) > >There is downward pressure on pay for entry/early career >EE/SEs and considerable upward pressure on more experienced. > I wish we could hire good EEs for $137K. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-30 22:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <10svip5$lq2e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #743561 |
On 30/04/2026 3:39 am, john larkin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:57:47 -0700, Don Y > <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: > >> On 4/28/2026 3:38 PM, Buzz McCool wrote: >>> An interesting ratio. Maybe screens to bench power supplies would be >>> a better measure of academic analog electronics rigor as oscopes in >>> an educational setting might be the USB type that plugs into a >>> computer. >> >> There's far less demand for electrical engineers. Too much is >> "slap together" from prefabbed modules -- designed by a relative >> few people feeding multiple customer products. And, their efforts >> in typical product designs are relatively small (man-hours). >> >> By contrast, the software/firmware in YOUR product is almost >> certainly not the same as in some other product (even if you >> leverage something like a Linux kernel). >> >> Electrical Engineer salaries: 64,511 - 137,087 [$87,988] >> Software Engineer: 75,449 - 209,993 [132,417] >> >> (composite of a variety of market surveys) >> >> There is downward pressure on pay for entry/early career >> EE/SEs and considerable upward pressure on more experienced. >> > > I wish we could hire good EEs for $137K. It might be easier if you didn't interview them yourself. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-30 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96p6vkdb353fq0bmmg2vbdf0p26suk3alg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #743584 |
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:43:08 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >On 30/04/2026 3:39 am, john larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:57:47 -0700, Don Y >> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 4/28/2026 3:38 PM, Buzz McCool wrote: >>>> An interesting ratio. Maybe screens to bench power supplies would be >>>> a better measure of academic analog electronics rigor as oscopes in >>>> an educational setting might be the USB type that plugs into a >>>> computer. >>> >>> There's far less demand for electrical engineers. Too much is >>> "slap together" from prefabbed modules -- designed by a relative >>> few people feeding multiple customer products. And, their efforts >>> in typical product designs are relatively small (man-hours). >>> >>> By contrast, the software/firmware in YOUR product is almost >>> certainly not the same as in some other product (even if you >>> leverage something like a Linux kernel). >>> >>> Electrical Engineer salaries: 64,511 - 137,087 [$87,988] >>> Software Engineer: 75,449 - 209,993 [132,417] >>> >>> (composite of a variety of market surveys) >>> >>> There is downward pressure on pay for entry/early career >>> EE/SEs and considerable upward pressure on more experienced. >>> >> >> I wish we could hire good EEs for $137K. > >It might be easier if you didn't interview them yourself. Good point. My company would hire more cheap duds. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-01 00:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <10svpmg$nuji$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #743590 |
On 1/05/2026 12:19 am, john larkin wrote: > On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:43:08 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On 30/04/2026 3:39 am, john larkin wrote: >>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:57:47 -0700, Don Y >>> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/28/2026 3:38 PM, Buzz McCool wrote: >>>>> An interesting ratio. Maybe screens to bench power supplies would be >>>>> a better measure of academic analog electronics rigor as oscopes in >>>>> an educational setting might be the USB type that plugs into a >>>>> computer. >>>> >>>> There's far less demand for electrical engineers. Too much is >>>> "slap together" from prefabbed modules -- designed by a relative >>>> few people feeding multiple customer products. And, their efforts >>>> in typical product designs are relatively small (man-hours). >>>> >>>> By contrast, the software/firmware in YOUR product is almost >>>> certainly not the same as in some other product (even if you >>>> leverage something like a Linux kernel). >>>> >>>> Electrical Engineer salaries: 64,511 - 137,087 [$87,988] >>>> Software Engineer: 75,449 - 209,993 [132,417] >>>> >>>> (composite of a variety of market surveys) >>>> >>>> There is downward pressure on pay for entry/early career >>>> EE/SEs and considerable upward pressure on more experienced. >>>> >>> >>> I wish we could hire good EEs for $137K. >> >> It might be easier if you didn't interview them yourself. > > Good point. My company would hire more cheap duds. They might also get to hire people that your antics could have put off. Asking potential hires really simple questions about electronics might save you from hiring a cheap dud, but it might put off somebody who might think that you hadn't bothered to read their CV (or worse, might think that you had not been able to understand it). Job interviews are a two way street. The interviewee gets an insight into the people they might end up having to work with. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JM <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-30 15:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d6r6vkt6t1vneq2nvnq99nohfiaejajkhc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #743561 |
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 10:39:23 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote: > >I wish we could hire good EEs for $137K. > That would get you about 3 engineers in the UK (ignoring the overheads).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web