On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 05:17:42 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:>On Saturday, 14 April 2018 03:49:51 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:59:41 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: >> >On 4/12/2018 5:39 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> > >> >> How would a "purchasing agent" change the specs on a part? >> >>> >> >That's exactly the point! >> > >> >The "purchasing agent" >> >sources a part that MEETS the specification, period! >> >They have a whole engineering team that verifies specs. >> >Cost reduction is a huge deal for them. >> >If your requirement exceeds the specification, you >> >may have a problem. >> >> That's complete bullshit! "Purchasing agents" wouldn't know a spec if >> it bit their ass completely off. They buy what the system tells them >> to buy, when it needs to be bought. No more. No less. If you can't >> tell them what to buy (and *only* what to buy) then your company is >> completely broken. >> >> >I had a production line shut down. After a lot of head >> >scratching, we determined that one of the components >> >wasn't doing what was expected. Funny, it didn't even >> >look the same. >> >> ...and you blame a lowly purchasing agent FOR YOUR MISTAKE? Amazing. >> >> >Corporate had placed a new demand on purchasing: >> >All components will have multiple sources. >> >> With no input from engineering? Sell your stock. That one's going >> under. > >for a corporation to ever be buying parts that doesn't have multiple sources is a clear hazard. It may be acceptable if there's no other way to get your bleeding edge gear done, but normally it's a big no go. So why was this not implemented from the start?There are many good reasons for not having second sources (at the top of the list "there aren't any") but you're right. Sourcing, second or first, has to be set up in advance. Purchasing can't be allowed to buy just anything.>And am I understanding right that it was implemented part way through a production run, thereby stopping that production, causing the problem it was intended to prevent?It can be worse than that. The problem could be found six months after it goes into production.>> >Purchasing complied. They wanted the quantity >> >price break, so we had a year's supply of parts >> >that didn't work. Stock was rotated, so there weren't >> >any working parts. >> >> Find a new employer. Your paycheck is about to bounce. >> >> >I went to purchasing and had them pull their copy >> >of the corporate specification. >> >Right on the first page, in BIG letters, it said, >> >"DO NOT APPROVE OTHER VENDORS FOR THIS PART WITHOUT >> >CONSULTING PRODUCT ENGINEERING." >> >> And who didn't follow orders? >> > >> >They pulled out the memo and said something equivalent to, >> >"Suck it. Come back with a waiver from corporate." >> >Of course, it got resolved with only a few bruised knuckles >> >on each side...including sales who couldn't meet deliveries... >> >and production who had people sitting around with partial assemblies >> >then later had to pay them overtime to catch up... >> >and finance who wanted the cash flow we didn't get and and and ... >> > >> >It was a cascading fubar that wasn't really anybody's fault. >> >But the root CAUSE was using a part beyond its specification. >> > >> >Bottom line is that shit happens no matter how >> >smart you think you are or how >> >explicit your instructions that violate the norm. >> >> No, the bottom line is that your company is completely out of control >> and will probably go under. >> > >> >Let me try to anticipate your next salvo... >> >If you change the spec to what you need and the vendor >> >refuses to test a part to those specs at a price >> >you're willing to pay, that's a clue that you shouldn't >> >be doing that. >> >> Wrong all around. >> >> >Calculated risk is great in the aggregate. >> >In the specific instance of failure, it's a bitch. >> >Nobody appreciates your successes. But they >> >sure do complain about your failures. >> > >> >This thread has brought back a lot of old memories... >> >Good times... >> >> Good time? Working for a shit company? I don't _think_ so. > >It totally reminds me of my time in bigcorp. Incompetents making key decisions, no-one noticing there was any kind of problem. And anyone that noticed and said anything got the blame for anything they can think up. No surprise that the mortality rate of big successful businesses is so high.I think the major reason for the death of big corporations is the *lack* of decision making. It really is hard to kill a cash cow, but someone will. That's why big corporations love government intervention. It keeps upstarts from going around killing cows.
Exceeding Vgs rating
Started by ●April 6, 2018
Reply by ●April 14, 20182018-04-14
Reply by ●April 14, 20182018-04-14
On 04/14/18 08:17, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:> On Saturday, 14 April 2018 03:49:51 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:59:41 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote: >>> On 4/12/2018 5:39 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> >>>> How would a "purchasing agent" change the specs on a part? >>>>> >>> That's exactly the point! >>> >>> The "purchasing agent" >>> sources a part that MEETS the specification, period! >>> They have a whole engineering team that verifies specs. >>> Cost reduction is a huge deal for them. >>> If your requirement exceeds the specification, you >>> may have a problem. >> >> That's complete bullshit! "Purchasing agents" wouldn't know a spec if >> it bit their ass completely off. They buy what the system tells them >> to buy, when it needs to be bought. No more. No less. If you can't >> tell them what to buy (and *only* what to buy) then your company is >> completely broken. >> >>> I had a production line shut down. After a lot of head >>> scratching, we determined that one of the components >>> wasn't doing what was expected. Funny, it didn't even >>> look the same. >> >> ...and you blame a lowly purchasing agent FOR YOUR MISTAKE? Amazing. >> >>> Corporate had placed a new demand on purchasing: >>> All components will have multiple sources. >> >> With no input from engineering? Sell your stock. That one's going >> under. > > for a corporation to ever be buying parts that doesn't have multiple sources is a clear hazard. It may be acceptable if there's no other way to get your bleeding edge gear done, but normally it's a big no go. So why was this not implemented from the start?Back in the day you could often do that. Consolidation has mostly blown that up in the semiconductor world--TI used to second-source National parts, AD used to second-source PMI, et cetera, et cetera. But even then the differences were very real. For instance, the jellybean TLV431 from different vendors have completely different stability properties vs. capacitive load. Nowadays there are so many single-sourced parts that virtually no design can be protected from this problem. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by ●April 14, 20182018-04-14
On Saturday, 14 April 2018 14:56:23 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote:> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 05:17:42 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:> >It totally reminds me of my time in bigcorp. Incompetents making key decisions, no-one noticing there was any kind of problem. And anyone that noticed and said anything got the blame for anything they can think up. No surprise that the mortality rate of big successful businesses is so high. > > I think the major reason for the death of big corporations is the > *lack* of decision making. It really is hard to kill a cash cow, but > someone will. That's why big corporations love government > intervention. It keeps upstarts from going around killing cows.FWIW my experience has been that the accumulation of stupid decisions is often what kills the thing. And if it doesn't, time usually does. Products move on, what was great years ago isn't any more. Success breeds cruft, inefficiency & complacency. And that breeds successful competitors. I suppose there are many ways for profitable companies to fail. Having said that I've been out of bigcorp territory for years. I learnt it wasn't what I was looking for. NT
Reply by ●April 14, 20182018-04-14
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:29:41 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:>On Saturday, 14 April 2018 14:56:23 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 05:17:42 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >It totally reminds me of my time in bigcorp. Incompetents making key decisions, no-one noticing there was any kind of problem. And anyone that noticed and said anything got the blame for anything they can think up. No surprise that the mortality rate of big successful businesses is so high. >> >> I think the major reason for the death of big corporations is the >> *lack* of decision making. It really is hard to kill a cash cow, but >> someone will. That's why big corporations love government >> intervention. It keeps upstarts from going around killing cows. > >FWIW my experience has been that the accumulation of stupid decisions is often what kills the thing. And if it doesn't, time usually does. Products move on, what was great years ago isn't any more.I rode IBM down for 30+ years. They actively tried to kill microprocessors, to the (silly) point of just speaking the word a career limiting move. And Intel came along and killed their cow. They didn't _allow_ themselves to kill it.>Success breeds cruft, inefficiency & complacency. And that breeds successful competitors.Certainly true/ Major corporations have the right of first refusal on new ideas. They have the cash to develop them or buy the startup that is. Of course, if they choose the latter option, they tend to try to bury the evidence. Never works.>I suppose there are many ways for profitable companies to fail.Lots of minor causes and hard to isolate it down to one, usually - all directly on senior management's shoulders.>Having said that I've been out of bigcorp territory for years. I learnt it wasn't what I was looking for.I've worked for &BigCorp. almost my entire career. It has its advantages.
Reply by ●April 14, 20182018-04-14
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 19:36:27 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:>On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:29:41 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > >>On Saturday, 14 April 2018 14:56:23 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 05:17:42 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >>> >It totally reminds me of my time in bigcorp. Incompetents making key decisions, no-one noticing there was any kind of problem. And anyone that noticed and said anything got the blame for anything they can think up. No surprise that the mortality rate of big successful businesses is so high. >>> >>> I think the major reason for the death of big corporations is the >>> *lack* of decision making. It really is hard to kill a cash cow, but >>> someone will. That's why big corporations love government >>> intervention. It keeps upstarts from going around killing cows. >> >>FWIW my experience has been that the accumulation of stupid decisions is often what kills the thing. And if it doesn't, time usually does. Products move on, what was great years ago isn't any more. > >I rode IBM down for 30+ years. They actively tried to kill >microprocessors, to the (silly) point of just speaking the word a >career limiting move. And Intel came along and killed their cow. They >didn't _allow_ themselves to kill it.That's a common pattern. A company won't kill their own cash cow, so they let someone else do it. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●April 14, 20182018-04-14
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 18:09:57 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:>On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 19:36:27 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:29:41 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>On Saturday, 14 April 2018 14:56:23 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 05:17:42 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >>> >>>> >It totally reminds me of my time in bigcorp. Incompetents making key decisions, no-one noticing there was any kind of problem. And anyone that noticed and said anything got the blame for anything they can think up. No surprise that the mortality rate of big successful businesses is so high. >>>> >>>> I think the major reason for the death of big corporations is the >>>> *lack* of decision making. It really is hard to kill a cash cow, but >>>> someone will. That's why big corporations love government >>>> intervention. It keeps upstarts from going around killing cows. >>> >>>FWIW my experience has been that the accumulation of stupid decisions is often what kills the thing. And if it doesn't, time usually does. Products move on, what was great years ago isn't any more. >> >>I rode IBM down for 30+ years. They actively tried to kill >>microprocessors, to the (silly) point of just speaking the word a >>career limiting move. And Intel came along and killed their cow. They >>didn't _allow_ themselves to kill it. > > >That's a common pattern. A company won't kill their own cash cow, so >they let someone else do it.That's exactly my point. IBM could have bought (almost did) Intel but they would have just buried it in the back yard of Armonk.
Reply by ●April 15, 20182018-04-15
On 13/04/18 17:36, Tim Williams wrote:> <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1cd22915-9697-44aa-921f-c66b8e104baf@googlegroups.com... >> On Thursday, 12 April 2018 22:42:33 UTC+1, Tim Williams� wrote: >> >>> Doesn't matter much for today's logic, what with TVS diodes being >>> useless >>> under 5V.� I suppose they would've worked just fine back in the day, >>> a "5V" >>> TVS protecting TTL or HC CMOS (or a 12V TVS protecting CD4000, but >>> probably >>> not a 15 or 18V TVS!). >>> >> I once tested a 5V logic device with higher power supply voltages.� It >> lasted only a few minutes at 6.5V.� I can't remember exactly what it was, >> or even why I was doing it, but it was most likely a GAL programmable >> logic device. >> John > > Once had a 3.3V PIC overvolted by a mis-spec'd LDO, it was simmering > about 3.8-4.2V and 100-200mA.� Not a bad LV zener, I suppose.I once accidentally ran a 5V quartz-windowed MC68HC11 on 9V, and it worked... except for the ADC that was damaged. Back on 5V, the current consumption was slightly raised, but everything else still worked ok. The ADC was still dead.
Reply by ●April 15, 20182018-04-15
"Clifford Heath" <no.spam@please.net> wrote in message news:2gRAC.26085$8Y2.22515@fx28.iad...> I once accidentally ran a 5V quartz-windowed MC68HC11 > on 9V, and it worked... except for the ADC that was > damaged. Back on 5V, the current consumption was > slightly raised, but everything else still worked ok. > The ADC was still dead.Heh, surprised it didn't glow yellow-green. Or maybe it did, but it was too dim to see. Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/
Reply by ●April 16, 20182018-04-16
On Monday, 16 April 2018 00:30:11 UTC+1, Clifford Heath wrote:> I once accidentally ran a 5V quartz-windowed MC68HC11That was a nice processor - along with the Hitachi clones like the 63701. John
Reply by ●April 16, 20182018-04-16
AT Monday 16 April 2018 17:28, jrwalliker@gmail.com wrote:> On Monday, 16 April 2018 00:30:11 UTC+1, Clifford Heath wrote: > >> I once accidentally ran a 5V quartz-windowed MC68HC11 > > That was a nice processor - along with the Hitachi clones like the 63701.Which unfortunately were killed because of the dispute between Hitachi and Motorola. I had the whole 63701 family in use. -- Reinhardt
