Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #450905 > unrolled thread

why analog electronics

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-08 17:11 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-09 10:35 +0200
      Re: why analog electronics Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-03-09 07:00 -0700
      Re: why analog electronics bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-09 09:30 -0500
      Re: why analog electronics gregz <zekor@comcast.net> - 2017-03-10 08:23 +0000
    Re: why analog electronics bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-09 09:25 -0500
    Re: why analog electronics Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-09 18:29 +0000
    Re: why analog electronics doh@yipee.com - 2017-03-09 13:42 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-09 22:29 +0000
        Re: why analog electronics pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 14:59 -0800
          Re: why analog electronics Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-10 08:27 +0000
            Re: why analog electronics Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2017-03-10 15:07 +0100
          Re: why analog electronics bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-10 12:17 -0500
            Re: why analog electronics bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-10 12:18 -0500
        Re: why analog electronics Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2017-03-10 13:30 +0100
        Re: why analog electronics bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-13 04:06 -0700
      Re: why analog electronics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-10 12:50 +1100
        Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-09 20:07 -0600
        Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-09 19:28 -0800
          Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-10 19:05 -0600
        Re: why analog electronics Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-10 04:49 -0800
          Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-10 08:08 -0800
            Re: why analog electronics Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-12 02:30 +0000
              Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-13 10:18 -0700
                Re: why analog electronics Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-03-13 22:56 +0000
        Re: why analog electronics Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-03-11 00:02 +0100
    Re: why analog electronics jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 20:50 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics boB@everett.wa - 2017-03-09 22:33 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 13:16 -0500
          Re: why analog electronics boB <boB@theresnoplacelikehome.com> - 2017-03-10 12:24 -0800
            Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 20:04 -0500
              Re: why analog electronics boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-03-10 19:41 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics djlocher56@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 22:27 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 13:17 -0500
        Re: why analog electronics bulegoge@columbus.rr.com - 2017-03-10 10:51 -0800
          Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 20:06 -0500
          Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-10 19:09 -0600
            Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 22:15 -0500
      Re: why analog electronics tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 14:12 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-03-10 15:30 -0700
          Re: why analog electronics tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 15:04 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics Anthony Stewart <tony.sunnysky@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 09:38 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics boB@everett.wa - 2017-03-10 11:03 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-10 20:09 -0500
          Re: why analog electronics boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-03-10 19:50 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-10 12:50 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-10 13:18 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-10 13:36 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-10 17:01 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-11 16:04 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-10 19:08 -0600
      Re: why analog electronics George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-10 18:54 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-11 11:45 -0600
          Re: why analog electronics "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-03-17 22:02 -0400
            Re: why analog electronics "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-18 03:55 -0500
      Re: why analog electronics boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-03-10 19:56 -0800
    Re: why analog electronics Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-03-11 12:42 -0600
      Re: why analog electronics Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-11 13:20 -0800
      Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-11 14:51 -0800
        Re: why analog electronics Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-12 13:28 +0000
          Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-12 10:49 -0700
            Re: why analog electronics Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-12 21:10 +0000
              Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 19:29 -0400
              Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-12 16:49 -0700
                Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 21:18 -0400
                  Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-12 19:07 -0700
                    Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 22:43 -0400
                      Re: why analog electronics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-12 19:53 -0700
                        Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 23:01 -0400
                      Re: why analog electronics pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 07:19 -0700
                        Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-13 20:39 -0400
                          Re: why analog electronics pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 04:28 -0700
                            Re: why analog electronics krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 12:42 -0400
                              Re: why analog electronics Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-15 09:56 -0400
    Re: why analog electronics George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-13 19:59 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#451227

On Friday, 10 March 2017 22:31:06 UTC, Jim Thompson  wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:12:35 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
> >On Friday, 10 March 2017 06:27:19 UTC, djloc...@gmail.com  wrote:

> >> Electronics can roughly be divided into two areas.  The transfer of power/energy and the transfer and processing of information.  Digital has completely won in the transfer of information
> >
> >I think it's a bit early to say that. Computer evolution has a very long way to go, and there's a valid point to reintroducing some analogue into that. Some jobs are best/quickest/easiest/cheapest done digital, and some analogue. A small amount of analogue processing could improve total performance.
> >
> >
> >NT
> 
> Those who spout that there's now only digital forget the fact that
> virtually all I/O on a consumer product chip is analog.
> 		
>                                         ...Jim Thompson

I suppose like anything there are popular notions that sound like they add up to folk that know no different. I see lots of packaging of consumer products trying to give the impression things are digital when they're not, playing to this myth people have bought into. One of the more remarkable examples was a PIR detector/alarm that was pictured on the package as emitting a grid of red light round the room. As if.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451176

Even Quantum Mechanics is based on analog, but at the MBA level many OSI layers are ignored.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451199

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:38:14 -0800 (PST), Anthony Stewart
<tony.sunnysky@gmail.com> wrote:

>Even Quantum Mechanics is based on analog, but at the MBA level many OSI layers are ignored.

Even at the quantum level, an electron can only occupy quanized
levels, so is it really analog then ?

boB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451250

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:03:19 -0800, boB@everett.wa wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:38:14 -0800 (PST), Anthony Stewart
><tony.sunnysky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Even Quantum Mechanics is based on analog, but at the MBA level many OSI layers are ignored.
>
>Even at the quantum level, an electron can only occupy quanized
>levels, so is it really analog then ?
>
Don't forget Max Plank.  I think he nailed the bottom turtle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451270

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:09:04 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:03:19 -0800, boB@everett.wa wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:38:14 -0800 (PST), Anthony Stewart
>><tony.sunnysky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Even Quantum Mechanics is based on analog, but at the MBA level many OSI layers are ignored.
>>
>>Even at the quantum level, an electron can only occupy quanTized
>>levels, so is it really analog then ?
>>
>Don't forget Max Plank.  I think he nailed the bottom turtle.

Absolutely ! fascinating stuff !

e = h f

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451209

On 2017-03-08 17:11, John Larkin wrote:
>
> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.


Do they make that much money? No wonder the UC system is always close to 
broke.

After what happened there lately I would not touch UC Berkeley with a 
10ft pole.


> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>

We had a professor who seriously said something like this in front of 
the whole auditorium: "Now you don't have to deal with this sort of 
stuff in practice anymore, just for the exam. Because by the time you 
receive your degrees all of it will be inside ICs and you don't have to 
worry about board level analog design anymore".

Boy was that guy wrong. Of course, I knew it and went analog full tilt. 
The sad thing is that many of my mates believed him and went into 
software and other areas. Now us analog guys can't retire because of that.


> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>

http://www.chezpanisse.com/menus/restaurant-menu/

Pricey. And no beer list so I'd prefer Zeitgeist.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451212

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:50:41 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-03-08 17:11, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>
>
>Do they make that much money? No wonder the UC system is always close to 
>broke.

The guy is a low-integer billionaire. He owns some islands and stuff.

>
>After what happened there lately I would not touch UC Berkeley with a 
>10ft pole.

Agreed. But they have a good MBA program.

>
>
>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
>> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>>
>
>We had a professor who seriously said something like this in front of 
>the whole auditorium: "Now you don't have to deal with this sort of 
>stuff in practice anymore, just for the exam. Because by the time you 
>receive your degrees all of it will be inside ICs and you don't have to 
>worry about board level analog design anymore".

Keep it up! Less competition.


>
>Boy was that guy wrong. Of course, I knew it and went analog full tilt. 
>The sad thing is that many of my mates believed him and went into 
>software and other areas. Now us analog guys can't retire because of that.


Could be worse, like getting a degree in anthropology and wind up
selling matresses.

>
>
>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>>
>
>http://www.chezpanisse.com/menus/restaurant-menu/
>
>Pricey. And no beer list so I'd prefer Zeitgeist.

She said it was OK but she'd just a soon have a Bullburger.

https://www.menuism.com/restaurants/bullshead-restaurant-san-francisco-91052





-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451214

On 2017-03-10 13:18, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:50:41 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-08 17:11, John Larkin wrote:

[...]

>>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.chezpanisse.com/menus/restaurant-menu/
>>
>> Pricey. And no beer list so I'd prefer Zeitgeist.
>
> She said it was OK but she'd just a soon have a Bullburger.
>
> https://www.menuism.com/restaurants/bullshead-restaurant-san-francisco-91052
>

We'll have Leberkaes tonight:

http://www.marions-kochbuch.de/dru-pic/0295.jpg

It is kind of a "meat cheese". Goes very well with a Koelsch which is 
homebrewed, of course.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451242

On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 3:50:39 PM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-03-08 17:11, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> > The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
> > his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
> 
> 
> Do they make that much money? No wonder the UC system is always close to 
> broke.
> 
> After what happened there lately I would not touch UC Berkeley with a 
> 10ft pole.
> 
> 
> > He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
> > does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
> > being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
> >
> 
> We had a professor who seriously said something like this in front of 
> the whole auditorium: "Now you don't have to deal with this sort of 
> stuff in practice anymore, just for the exam. Because by the time you 
> receive your degrees all of it will be inside ICs and you don't have to 
> worry about board level analog design anymore".
> 
> Boy was that guy wrong. Of course, I knew it and went analog full tilt. 
> The sad thing is that many of my mates believed him and went into 
> software and other areas. Now us analog guys can't retire because of that.
> 
> 
> > So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
> > maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
> >
> 
> http://www.chezpanisse.com/menus/restaurant-menu/
> 
> Pricey. And no beer list so I'd prefer Zeitgeist.
I was at this spendy restaurant, (a conference in/ 
near Santa Barbara) the only beer they had was a 
Belgian ale. Kono and I ordered too many bottles!
Well really the perfect amount, we were walking 
home.  My first taste of Belgian abbey ale.
Affligem Dubbel.  

George H.     
> 
> -- 
> Regards, Joerg
> 
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451396

On 2017-03-10 17:01, George Herold wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 3:50:39 PM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-03-08 17:11, John Larkin wrote:

[...]

>>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.chezpanisse.com/menus/restaurant-menu/
>>
>> Pricey. And no beer list so I'd prefer Zeitgeist.
> I was at this spendy restaurant, (a conference in/
> near Santa Barbara) the only beer they had was a
> Belgian ale. Kono and I ordered too many bottles!
> Well really the perfect amount, we were walking
> home.  My first taste of Belgian abbey ale.
> Affligem Dubbel.
>

That is seriously good stuff, and pricey. Now that I make my own abbey 
ale it's not so pricey but even there a small 12oz bottle easily comes 
to $1. Not $5 like in the store though.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451248

"Hardware eventually fails. Software eventually works." - Michael Hartung

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com


"John Larkin" <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message 
news:jea1cc5ealcjf3b9ot1kfsuqkl0lu6me44@4ax.com...
>
> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
> being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>
> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>
>
> -- 
>
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
> picosecond timing   precision measurement
>
> jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
> http://www.highlandtechnology.com
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451263

On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 8:07:50 PM UTC-5, Tim Williams wrote:
> "Hardware eventually fails. Software eventually works." - Michael Hartung
Grin, hadn't heard that.  My ~10 yro copy of Eagle (4.15) is still 
running fine (on Win 7), I don't ask it to do much.  
I've got other software, that now is only kept alive on a 
virtual XP machine.  (I'm kinda a ludite with software though.)

Oh and as I've read, storage is best done digital, 
whether DNA or bits.  Analog makes the measurement,
digital records it and passes it on.

George H.    
> 
> Tim
> 
> -- 
> Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
> Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
> Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
> 
> 
> "John Larkin" <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message 
> news:jea1cc5ealcjf3b9ot1kfsuqkl0lu6me44@4ax.com...
> >
> > The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
> > his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
> > He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
> > does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not
> > being a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
> >
> > So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
> > maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
> >
> >
> > -- 
> >
> > John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
> > picosecond timing   precision measurement
> >
> > jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
> > http://www.highlandtechnology.com
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451337

"George Herold" <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in message 
news:5d27f81a-197d-4e16-9355-b106fa65dc8f@googlegroups.com...
> Grin, hadn't heard that.  My ~10 yro copy of Eagle (4.15) is still
> running fine (on Win 7), I don't ask it to do much.
> I've got other software, that now is only kept alive on a
> virtual XP machine.  (I'm kinda a ludite with software though.)

Not that Eagle has ever "worked" all that well... :^)


> Oh and as I've read, storage is best done digital,
> whether DNA or bits.  Analog makes the measurement,
> digital records it and passes it on.

Had an idea for a semi-analog storage (e.g. sample-and-hold), namely one 
without drift.  Though it would be slow.  Suppose you use back-to-back 
F-to-V and V-to-F converters, and lock it with a PLL.  Interrupt the loop 
with a regular S&H when you want to update the value.

I suddenly forget why that would work... you'd have to add another 
constraint that the frequency is divided evenly, or a ratio is conserved, or 
something.  Otherwise, drift is drift.  And yes, once you're locked to a 
rational number, you're as good as digital, it's just arising from a circuit 
different from the canonical ADC-latch-DAC.

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#452365

Tim Williams wrote:
> "George Herold" <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in message
> news:5d27f81a-197d-4e16-9355-b106fa65dc8f@googlegroups.com...
>> Grin, hadn't heard that.  My ~10 yro copy of Eagle (4.15) is still
>> running fine (on Win 7), I don't ask it to do much.
>> I've got other software, that now is only kept alive on a
>> virtual XP machine.  (I'm kinda a ludite with software though.)
>
> Not that Eagle has ever "worked" all that well... :^)
>
>
>> Oh and as I've read, storage is best done digital,
>> whether DNA or bits.  Analog makes the measurement,
>> digital records it and passes it on.
>
> Had an idea for a semi-analog storage (e.g. sample-and-hold), namely
> one without drift.  Though it would be slow.  Suppose you use
> back-to-back F-to-V and V-to-F converters, and lock it with a PLL. 
> Interrupt the loop with a regular S&H when you want to update the
> value.
> I suddenly forget why that would work... you'd have to add another
> constraint that the frequency is divided evenly, or a ratio is
> conserved, or something.  Otherwise, drift is drift.  And yes, once
> you're locked to a rational number, you're as good as digital, it's
> just arising from a circuit different from the canonical
> ADC-latch-DAC.

How could the number of bits of storage ever be greater than the number 
of bits in the frequency divider?  I mean, the number of states is the 
number of states.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#452389

"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote in 
message news:oai4tv$fcc$1@dont-email.me...
> How could the number of bits of storage ever be greater than the number of 
> bits in the frequency divider?  I mean, the number of states is the number 
> of states.

Yes!  The storage is in the divider, of course.

Tricky, because the division can be, ehh, kind of teeter-totter balanced on 
a low-gain spur from an XOR phase detector -- but, outside of those cases, 
in a classical VCO(-mult)-divider-PLL design, that is exactly it.

I wonder what I was thinking (was it XOR phase detection?), and if there was 
something cool there at all, or not... :)

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451272

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:08:09 -0600, "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:

>"Hardware eventually fails. Software eventually works." - Michael Hartung
>
>Tim


Yes.  that sentence says it all !  I like it !

So, add in non-linear circuits too...

Kind of in-between.   Log amps and stuff.

Of course, nothing is perfectly nonlinear.

boB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451347

On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:11:04 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not being
> a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
> 
> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.

I'll cosign.  I know there have been other articles on the theme of 
"there will always be analog" most of which make good points.  I couldn't 
point you to any links, though.

I do think that in general the most common circuits now are ADC -> 
digital -> DAC, and that the dividing line between the analog and digital 
keeps getting pushed closer and closer to the edges of the board.  But I 
also firmly believe that there will _always_ be applications for which a 
pure, or mostly, analog solution is the sensible way to go.

(I'm currently immersed in Shannon's 1948 tutorial paper where he spells 
out his channel capacity theorem.  He mentions PCM modulation, AKA 
digital replacement of an analog signal, as an example of sending 
redundant information on a signal.  Doing so comes complete with the 
thresholding effects you see in any other forward error correction 
scheme, where things are Really Good up to some threshold, and then 
things get Really Bad.)

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451365

Den lørdag den 11. marts 2017 kl. 19.42.19 UTC+1 skrev Tim Wescott:
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:11:04 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
> 
> > The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
> > his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
> > He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
> > does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not being
> > a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
> > 
> > So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
> > maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
> 
> I'll cosign.  I know there have been other articles on the theme of 
> "there will always be analog" most of which make good points.  I couldn't 
> point you to any links, though.
> 
> I do think that in general the most common circuits now are ADC -> 
> digital -> DAC, and that the dividing line between the analog and digital 
> keeps getting pushed closer and closer to the edges of the board.  But I 
> also firmly believe that there will _always_ be applications for which a 
> pure, or mostly, analog solution is the sensible way to go.
> 
> (I'm currently immersed in Shannon's 1948 tutorial paper where he spells 
> out his channel capacity theorem.  He mentions PCM modulation, AKA 
> digital replacement of an analog signal, as an example of sending 
> redundant information on a signal.  Doing so comes complete with the 
> thresholding effects you see in any other forward error correction 
> scheme, where things are Really Good up to some threshold, and then 
> things get Really Bad.)
> 

I remember that from working on bluetooth nearly 20 years ago, when 
measuring sensitivity there was a razor edge between between zero bit 
errors loss and 100% packet loss

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451383

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:42:12 -0600, Tim Wescott
<tim@seemywebsite.really> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:11:04 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> The Brat is in the UC Berkeley MBA program, and one of her profs took
>> his entire class to dinner at Chez Panisse, which ran about $200 per.
>> He was asking about our company, and was surprised that anyone still
>> does analog electronics. "Isn't everything digital now?" He's not being
>> a jerk, he's seriously wondering why anything is analog.
>> 
>> So, I'm going to write him a little essay on "why analog?" Who knows,
>> maybe he'll take me to Chez Panisse.
>
>I'll cosign.  I know there have been other articles on the theme of 
>"there will always be analog" most of which make good points.  I couldn't 
>point you to any links, though.
>
>I do think that in general the most common circuits now are ADC -> 
>digital -> DAC, and that the dividing line between the analog and digital 
>keeps getting pushed closer and closer to the edges of the board.  But I 
>also firmly believe that there will _always_ be applications for which a 
>pure, or mostly, analog solution is the sensible way to go.
>
>(I'm currently immersed in Shannon's 1948 tutorial paper where he spells 
>out his channel capacity theorem.  He mentions PCM modulation, AKA 
>digital replacement of an analog signal, as an example of sending 
>redundant information on a signal.  Doing so comes complete with the 
>thresholding effects you see in any other forward error correction 
>scheme, where things are Really Good up to some threshold, and then 
>things get Really Bad.)

I can buy a 32 Gbyte USB memory stick for $9. That's roughly 2e-12
dollars per transistor. Or I can buy a fast opamp for about the same
price, with maybe 100 transistors inside, around 10 cents per
transistor. The memory stick comes with free shipping, and the opamp
doesn't.

I'm designing two boxes just now that are both 100% analog. Not a
flipflop or gate in sight. That's refreshing. We have much higher
markups on all-analog stuff than on mixed-signal products.




-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451461

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:51:51 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

> I'm designing two boxes just now that are both 100% analog. Not a
> flipflop or gate in sight. That's refreshing. We have much higher
> markups on all-analog stuff than on mixed-signal products.

Roland Moreno, the inventor of the smart card gave an interview to 
Electronics Times and came out with this pithy observation: 
"Digital is easy. Analog.... that's professional."

[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