On Mon, 8 May 2017 19:16:04 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:
><krw@notreal.com> wrote in message
>news:0ir1hc9u0geib5titupvcfg9a10qvfadqi@4ax.com...
>> Sure. If you aren't doing cutting edge stuff you don't pay cutting
>> edge prices. That's a surprise?
>
>Yes, actually.
>
>What I don't get:
>
>How come all that old iron from the 60s and 70s, with big fat huge micron
>linewidths, isn't in peoples' garages? It just went straight to the scrap
>yard. (Except for the very few legacy lines that are making stuff like 741s
>and LM13700s.)
Because, as I said, you couldn't afford to run it if it were given to
you.
>Another perspective:
>PCBs are hobbyist/maker friendly. Get a dozen little boards for about as
>many bucks.
>
>Cheap PCBs have shitty specs, but they usually still meet IPC minimums (7/7
>mils), and that's good enough for most SMT, and more than enough for any
>THT.
and your point is?
>You can get much finer spec PCBs, just as easily -- if more expensive. The
>scaling of that expense seems to be maybe quadratic (3 times finer pitch -->
>10 times cost), still depending on quantity of course.
and your point is?
>But it's not like it's going to break your whole business model if you're
>building a device in your garage.
>
>As soon as you put stuff on a wafer, it's suddenly a big deal, say with
>COMSIS and all that. Big fab stuff. Big bucks. Big lead times. Where's
>the guy with the garage fab spinning protos in a couple days?
Big fab stuff doesn't cost small potatoes. Sorry.
Reply by ●May 14, 20172017-05-14
On Sun, 14 May 2017 20:10:17 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
>"JM" wrote in message news:of9s4r$49p$1@dont-email.me...
>
>On 07/05/2017 22:05, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 May 2017 21:04:14 +0100, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/05/2017 20:52, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>>> Analog ones are more challenging, but essentially, the chief reason,
>>>
>>> And oranges are much better than apples.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So edifying >:-}
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>
>>I was responding to Kevin. I agree with most of what he says, but I don't
>>think you can claim that analogue asic's are more (or less) challenging
>>that digital ones.
>
>Oh...?
>
>A modern digital asic design is ALL done in, effectively, in software.
>People just write VHDL or Verilog Code. The tools take the code and generate
>the layout with a button press.
Parts. the rest may be full custom.
>
>Software is piss easy :-)
Understanding the requirements document isn't.
>
>In Cadence mixed mode, ones sets up a view to the code and runs the code in
>with the hard part, i.e. the analog
Well, yes, trivial logic is, well, trivial.
Reply by ●May 14, 20172017-05-14
On Sun, 14 May 2017 09:18:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 May 2017 16:15:47 +0100, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 07/05/2017 22:05, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 May 2017 21:04:14 +0100, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/05/2017 20:52, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>>>> Analog ones are more challenging, but essentially, the chief reason,
>>>>
>>>> And oranges are much better than apples.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So edifying >:-}
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>
>>I was responding to Kevin. I agree with most of what he says, but I
>>don't think you can claim that analogue asic's are more (or less)
>>challenging that digital ones.
>
>Would you care to prove your assertion by examination ?>:-}
>
>In today's world, digital _chip_ design is virtually automated, once
>the logical functionality is established.
Spoken like a real ignoramus. That's why there are hundreds of people
on the design teams.
>Unless, of course, you are talking about designing the gates at the
>device level (then it's analog ;-) I did that once for
>Motorola/ON-Semi so they could move their entire 74HCxxx line from
>in-house processing to Chartered Semi's line.
>
>>
>>(Although for complex devices they are no longer purely analogue or
>>digital, and it looks like the relative analogue silicon area as a
>>percentage of the die of a majority of complex devices is continuing to
>>increase.)
>>
>>I can see problems ahead since the current analogue design tools are
>>beginning to struggle. Analogue artist is not exactly a quantum leap
>>from Harris's SLICE of 30 odd years ago.
>
>The tool is _not_ the designer. I sketch out most of my designs on
>paper before entering them into a simulator.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Reply by Kevin Aylward●May 14, 20172017-05-14
"JM" wrote in message news:of9s4r$49p$1@dont-email.me...
On 07/05/2017 22:05, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2017 21:04:14 +0100, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/2017 20:52, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>> Analog ones are more challenging, but essentially, the chief reason,
>>
>> And oranges are much better than apples.
>>
>>
>>
>
> So edifying >:-}
>
> ...Jim Thompson
>
>I was responding to Kevin. I agree with most of what he says, but I don't
>think you can claim that analogue asic's are more (or less) challenging
>that digital ones.
Oh...?
A modern digital asic design is ALL done in, effectively, in software.
People just write VHDL or Verilog Code. The tools take the code and generate
the layout with a button press.
Software is piss easy :-)
In Cadence mixed mode, ones sets up a view to the code and runs the code in
with the hard part, i.e. the analog
-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
Reply by Jim Thompson●May 14, 20172017-05-14
On Sun, 14 May 2017 16:15:47 +0100, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 07/05/2017 22:05, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 May 2017 21:04:14 +0100, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/05/2017 20:52, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>>> Analog ones are more challenging, but essentially, the chief reason,
>>>
>>> And oranges are much better than apples.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So edifying >:-}
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>
>I was responding to Kevin. I agree with most of what he says, but I
>don't think you can claim that analogue asic's are more (or less)
>challenging that digital ones.
Would you care to prove your assertion by examination ?>:-}
In today's world, digital _chip_ design is virtually automated, once
the logical functionality is established.
Unless, of course, you are talking about designing the gates at the
device level (then it's analog ;-) I did that once for
Motorola/ON-Semi so they could move their entire 74HCxxx line from
in-house processing to Chartered Semi's line.
>
>(Although for complex devices they are no longer purely analogue or
>digital, and it looks like the relative analogue silicon area as a
>percentage of the die of a majority of complex devices is continuing to
>increase.)
>
>I can see problems ahead since the current analogue design tools are
>beginning to struggle. Analogue artist is not exactly a quantum leap
>from Harris's SLICE of 30 odd years ago.
The tool is _not_ the designer. I sketch out most of my designs on
paper before entering them into a simulator.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that
is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
Reply by bitrex●May 14, 20172017-05-14
On 05/08/2017 08:16 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
> <krw@notreal.com> wrote in message
> news:0ir1hc9u0geib5titupvcfg9a10qvfadqi@4ax.com...
>> Sure. If you aren't doing cutting edge stuff you don't pay cutting
>> edge prices. That's a surprise?
>
> Yes, actually.
>
> What I don't get:
>
> How come all that old iron from the 60s and 70s, with big fat huge
> micron linewidths, isn't in peoples' garages? It just went straight to
> the scrap yard. (Except for the very few legacy lines that are making
> stuff like 741s and LM13700s.)
CoolAudio is making THAT2181 quad VCAs again for a buck in quantity, get
'em while they're hot
Reply by JM●May 14, 20172017-05-14
On 07/05/2017 22:05, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2017 21:04:14 +0100, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/2017 20:52, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>> Analog ones are more challenging, but essentially, the chief reason,
>>
>> And oranges are much better than apples.
>>
>>
>>
>
> So edifying >:-}
>
> ...Jim Thompson
>
I was responding to Kevin. I agree with most of what he says, but I
don't think you can claim that analogue asic's are more (or less)
challenging that digital ones.
(Although for complex devices they are no longer purely analogue or
digital, and it looks like the relative analogue silicon area as a
percentage of the die of a majority of complex devices is continuing to
increase.)
I can see problems ahead since the current analogue design tools are
beginning to struggle. Analogue artist is not exactly a quantum leap
from Harris's SLICE of 30 odd years ago.
Reply by Kevin Aylward●May 12, 20172017-05-12
wrote in message news:cqk9hc5aljetdp86ej6t50ho575bvjbr8d@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 May 2017 19:04:06 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
>wrote in message news:e633hcttjkngghqdp9jp9j1kqued9fcj9f@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 8 May 2017 20:44:24 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message news:oeo0db$vsh$1@news.datemas.de...
>>
>>On a sunny day (Sun, 7 May 2017 20:55:15 +0100) it happened "Kevin
>>Aylward"
>><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in
>><BIqdnXfG6Yo55pLEnZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>
>>>>However, I do have an OCXO asic in production that runs up to 100MHz,
>>>>has
>>>>a
>>>>few ppb stability, and flat band phase noise approaching -165db, in a
>>>>very
>>>>small package.
>>
>>>>Very impressive,. -165 dB wonder how you measure that.
>>
>>>Should have said dBc, but I guess you knowing all about oscillators,
>>>would
>>>know the standard terminology.
>>
>>>I should expand on this. This is the noise after the limiter/squarer. Raw
>>>oscillator designs can be -190dBc to -180dBc. A key point is that this is
>>>with an internal 2.5V supply, in a package of 7mmx5mm. Any mere mortal
>>>can
>>>get that sort of performance in a 1" square with 12V.
>
>>>At what offset from carrier are those figures measured ?
>
>
>>I did said flatband. For oscillators in the 10MHz to 50MHz range, this is
>>of
>>the order of 100Khz+ offset. This is range where xtals work best.
>Such huge offsets are of interest mainly with half-duplex repeaters.
>Commercial half-duplex repeater stations usually work with several MHz
>duplex intervals. However amateur radio repeaters usually work with
>only 100 kHz @29 MHz and 600 kHz @51 and 145 MHz bands.
High speed, ADCs, care about the whole whole flatband range to minimise
jitter.
There is a standard telecom spec of 12kHz to 20 Mhz integration for
jitter...
>>>Since we are measuring noise, density, what is the measurement
>>>bandwidth, ? 1 Hz?
>
>>Its always 1Hz BW
>So did I assume, but you never know, which tricks specification
>writers use these days :-)
Yes. The whole electronics industry is full of lies er.. creative
specmanship.
>>Apparently the carrier power is something like +15 dBm, going -190 dB
>>down from that would be -175 dBm.
>
>>PN is always specified relative to carrier in dBc. The actual
>>power/voltage
>>is a separate spec.
>
>>If noise in dB is written, it means dBc.
>For practical purposes, the interesting offset is when the oscillator
>phase noise is drowned by the thermal noise and for LF/MF/HF/VHF
>receivers, when it drops below the band noise.
>For this reason, you really need significant power levels in order to
>stay away from the thermal noise floor. For low power designs, the
>maximum dBc figures are simply limited by the thermal noise.
Power is the main concern. Many would like 1 ma for a whole oscillator
system. A decent limiter needs several ma on its own.
If there are bipolars in the design, it may well be that shot noise is a
main contributor.
>>The _input_ related thermal noise _density_ for a good amplifier is
>>about -174 dBm/Hz, the _output_ related thermal noise density has been
>>amplified by the power gain. For oscillators, the noise floor is often
>>worse.
>
>Note we are talking about phase noise, not amplitude or additive noise.
>Oscillators can get very good flat band phase noise, but the majority of
>systems require a square wave. The limiter always dominates flatband noise.
>I assume that by flatband noise you are referring to the thermal noise
>floor ?
On a sunny day (Fri, 12 May 2017 13:52:51 +0100) it happened "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in
<iaCdndWqTIS-LYjEnZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>:
From a POV of whatsit the random movements of signals in the brain,
in the human being, sometimes referred to as 'humming bean'
try to make a model of the reality it observes.
Consciousness in that sense is just one part of it measuring(..) the other few neurons activity,
and it has some output that emits: theory, opinion, anything.
It is easy to write a computer program that is conscious, the simplest thing I always mention
is a sun-screen with photocell, it opens in the dark and closes in light,
a simple control loop, just like our own eye pupil.
Add 10 lines or less code to measure the control signal and say 'it is dark it is light',
and there you are, it is conscious.
A doctor will check the eye reflex to see if you are conscious.
I do not see any mystery there at all.
But it makes great stuff for those who know nothing about tronix, like whatshisname 'I think so I am',
How profound..
So to the 'opinions' 'theories' 'world view' etc etc many possibilities exist.
In a (computer simulation) neural net instability can also exist, and the endless motion
can be if a larger net, as a _hopefully_ converging activity to a balance,
a weights and connections configuration that we then can call our 'current understanding'
That is due to change as the net (we) are exposed to continuous inputs.
From that POV our theories are worth just exactly that much.
We need the models we create in our brain to exist in this world.
From catching a ball to driving a car or designing some tools, or using those (evolution had it that way).
Purely from that point we need no math.
Math is designed by us as a side product that can help us, but just like we invented knives
it can hurt us too, lead us astray.
Always and always we should verify our theories with observation.
String theory does not allow us to do that, so until it can it is just a useless pattern,
say noise, in the neural fireworks.
No better than saying Elvis is alive and anything can be explained by that, just assign enough power to him.
:-)
Think I had nuf of this for 2daaai
;-)
Reply by Jan Panteltje●May 12, 20172017-05-12
On a sunny day (Fri, 12 May 2017 13:52:51 +0100) it happened "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in
<iaCdndWqTIS-LYjEnZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message news:of2bko$15fm$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>
>
>>>It is in our genes to tinker...
>>
>>The route explanation of all of this, is random. Once one really thinks
>>about the problem, there is only one rational solution. Essentially, an
>>infinite number of universes each with different laws of physics, we just
>>happen to be in one where the laws allow us to exist.
>
>>Na, I could follow you for most parts up to here.
>>But the infinite universes thingy does not jive with me.
>>Apart from the fact that if one says 'Universe' everybody has his / her own
>>ideas...
>>I do not think the laws of physics are that different..
>
>You would be incorrect.
>
>My arguments are here:
>
>http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/sfn.html
Introduction, time
<quote> Time is simply the observation that objects have changed their position relatively to other objects.</quote>
agreed.
Something From Nothing
I think you are twisting reality here a bit (or a lot).
What we call 'law of physics' is simply our observations
reduced to a mathematical model.
Indeed it requires, 'us' and the 'world around us' to exist.
A little sidestep 'gedanken experiment' something from nothing is strongly related to QM,
randomness, probabilities (electron is here or there but we know not... cannot measure both ... blah blah)
I do not like QM, it is like epicycles.
There are other theories, I am with De Broglie's 'Pilot Wave Theory',
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave
the decisions made in the Copenhagen conference (Copenhagen interpretation) about among other things that dead / alive cat etc is mere bogus.
I think that guy went into that park in Copenhagen (have you ever been there?) and in those days LSD was
really the thing to try there, and that is how QM won in that conference.
I was there for an other conference, but that is an other story,
had a hour to look around that town and found that park, it had a sign now, 'do not enter'
or something, so ..
Fundamental Axioms Of Physics
If you assume the space is empty, then nothing will randomly manifest.
Einstein did away with a medium for EM (light) and put whatever there was under the carpet making it look clean,
same for his mathematical model for gravity.
OF COURSE there is something that allows all those things.
'Virtual particles popping in and out of existence' is often quoted but simply not good enough.
Big And Micro Bangs
Well first I must admit that I am not even sure there was a big bang, that theory has caused many observational problems,
and still does so to this day.
The previous Pope told Hawkins 'it would be good if there was a bang, as that would explain everything'.
I have no idea what he meant by 'everything', and he stepped down anyways...
:-)
Beware of singularities and other mathematical traps.
Let's take a simple example.
Some guy long ago found, by observation, I = U / R.
Not knowing about electrons he could easily assume that _infinite_ current would flow in a zero resistance object,
he would also state that in a vacuum nothing could flow.
Things changed a bit when teh first vacuum diode was demonstrated...
when it was found that current was granular, and the equation breaks down at one electron at the time.
MANY mathematicians like to go for the incomplete formulas, and they LOVE the infinities that come with it.
Make press, people say: 'Oh it must be right, the math proves it.'
And an other wormhole is created.
Epicycles.
I will comment on the rest below later, after reading.