On Tue, 19 May 2020 18:02:55 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote:>On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> I love data sheets like LM9999final.pdf >> >> They can never change that! > >What about an LM-5050? >It either works, or it doesn't. :)Agh, who cares? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc Science teaches us to doubt. Claude Bernard
why do they do this?
Started by ●May 18, 2020
Reply by ●May 19, 20202020-05-19
Reply by ●May 19, 20202020-05-19
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 9:02:59 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:> On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > I love data sheets like LM9999final.pdf > > > > They can never change that! > > What about an LM-5050? > It either works, or it doesn't. :)LOL! That's a good one... -- Rick C. +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●May 20, 20202020-05-20
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 4:16:49 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:> On 19/05/2020 02:51, Michael Terrell wrote: > > On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 7:41:34 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > >> ST makes a nice little LDO, super-low dropout with an aux Vbias > >> supply. Saves me from rolling my own with an opamp and a mosfet. > >> > >> It's an ST1L08. > >> > >> So why is the data sheet file en.DM00123507.pdf ? > > > > To track revisions. > > More likely because it was stuffed into a crude document management > system and it is in English. Try it.DM00123507.pdf or es.* > I confess I rename such things to the chipname. > > They are not the only vendor guilty of having datasheets filed with > random numbers for their filename. > > It is a PITA since they could just as easily have used > en.<partno>-01.pdf > > And give it a new part number if they overflow the revision level.That depends. I'm sure that datasheets are a very small part of their corporate documents, and within the company it works for them. If they did it by part name, it should include the company name, and the date that it was released. For example: DevName-TI-2020-05
Reply by ●May 20, 20202020-05-20
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:> > On Tue, 19 May 2020 00:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell wrote: > > >On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 2:46:25 AM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote: wrote: > >> > >> > On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 7:41:34 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > >> >> ST makes a nice little LDO, super-low dropout with an aux Vbias > >> >> supply. Saves me from rolling my own with an opamp and a mosfet. > >> >> > >> >> It's an ST1L08. > >> >> > >> >> So why is the data sheet file en.DM00123507.pdf ? > >> > > >> > > >> > To track revisions. > >> > >> Not buying that as good reason to obfuscate document names. Part numbers > >> for components are not random numbers only trackable with a database > >> lookup. There's no reason document names have to be completely contextless > >> to be "trackable". > >> > >> Let's see how a smart company that's been able to adapt over the years and > >> still remain relevant does it. > >> > >> Texas Instruments has employees with IQs over 43 maintaining their > >> website. I clicked around for a random part, the OPA1622 audio amp. > >> > >> The URL to the datasheet has a clear meaning, even if you don't click on > >> it > >> > >> http://www.ti.com/document-viewer/OPA1622/datasheet > >> > >> If you want to save the PDF, you get this really cool file name by default > >> > >> opa1622.pdf > >> > >> wow, how did they do it? > >> > >> The first link even has a clear revision history list link in case you > >> want to know what happened prior to November 2015. There appear to be a > >> document control number at the top of the PDF too. > >> > >> So yeah, short story is ST is just stupid. > > > > So, it's better to have all the datasheets by part number? Try keeping multiple versions from one vendor, plus second sources, all with the same file name. Some jellybean parts have dozens of versions of a datasheet. > > Easy. LM9999_revA.pdf. > > I rename the meaningless data sheets. > > > > > The head of Engineering at Microdyne was pushing for a new inventory system. His concept was that the part number for a 1K resistor would be 1002. He threw a real hissy fit when I pointed out that we stocked 14 different 1K resistors, and other components had a value of 1002. He wasn't there very long before they fired him. > > We had a series of very intense/interesting meetings about this. We > settled on a telephone-number format, 123-4567 for all parts. We have > a document SACRED.TXT that explains all the rules. > > > > > All of our documentation had form numbers, unrelated to the product model numbers. They were filed by model number, but under ISO9001 we had to have traceability for all revisions. One board had 14 versions, and 14 test procedures. Every one ended up with over 100 lines that had to be marked N/A. I wrote a new procedure to cover every version of the board. It had 14 datasheets, one per version with no extra lines, plus a spare to allow for you to add new versions. The first page clearly stated to only use the specified datasheet for the version being tested. It reduced both the test time, and the paperwork to be stored. There are reasons to use other than obvious file naming. I am currently going through thousands of PDF files for test equipment. I am adding the actual document numbers to the file names, not just 'HP3325' since the A and B versions are different, but the manuals were revised multiple times. I have 180 GB of files, over 32,000 of them to sort, rename and compare. > >Some are duplicates, some are incomplete but I save every Electronics manual I come across. > > I know of one big company that assigns a 12-digit number to anything. > Parts. Products. Drawings. Trucks. Buildings. Employees. > > I've worked for companies that just assigned the next sequential > number to anything. If you know the PCB number, you had to look in the > log book to find the schematic. The numbers were totally unrelated.There were still reference to some trucks in the Microdyne inventory, along with all the test equipment. The founders of the company mad the Cal Lab keep their records in the database rather than their own system. It was on a Prime mini computer with about fifty terminals scattered all over the complex. Those trucks were gone, but they had been used to install their C-band equipment in head ends, and businesses before they shut down that product line.
Reply by ●May 20, 20202020-05-20
boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:> On Mon, 18 May 2020 23:03:17 -0700, Robert Baer > <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> ST makes a nice little LDO, super-low dropout with an aux Vbias >>> supply. Saves me from rolling my own with an opamp and a mosfet. >>> >>> It's an ST1L08. >>> >>> So why is the data sheet file en.DM00123507.pdf ? >>> >> ST is not the only one with nutty data sheet names; they abound and >>rebound thru one's skull with free abandon. >> The clangs created are tuned for maximum confuddleifcation. > > > That file naming method has always bothered me. > > It's not just ST of course. TI starts their app notes with something > like slup1234.pdfHaven't ANs always been like that though? Just sort of sequential numbers for the most part that you might get faxed or mailed over? Computer/software Knowlege Base stuff is similar, they just use a series of numbers, since trying to locate a specific document without an exact number is almost pointless if you tried to search for common terms. I can forgive nearly meaningless file naming for those. Components are physical devices with exact part numbers, not concepts or procedures. They deserve documentation tied to that part number.> When I save any of these documents, I always rename them to something > meaningful to me, usually the part number first and a quick > description....Notice how so far nobody has said "damn it, I'd rename 74S161.PDF into en.87784636y4ehfh5476f.PDF as I drop it into my really helpful document management system".
Reply by ●May 20, 20202020-05-20
On Tue, 19 May 2020 20:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:>On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Tue, 19 May 2020 00:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell wrote: >> >> >On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 2:46:25 AM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote: wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 7:41:34 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> ST makes a nice little LDO, super-low dropout with an aux Vbias >> >> >> supply. Saves me from rolling my own with an opamp and a mosfet. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's an ST1L08. >> >> >> >> >> >> So why is the data sheet file en.DM00123507.pdf ? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > To track revisions. >> >> >> >> Not buying that as good reason to obfuscate document names. Part numbers >> >> for components are not random numbers only trackable with a database >> >> lookup. There's no reason document names have to be completely contextless >> >> to be "trackable". >> >> >> >> Let's see how a smart company that's been able to adapt over the years and >> >> still remain relevant does it. >> >> >> >> Texas Instruments has employees with IQs over 43 maintaining their >> >> website. I clicked around for a random part, the OPA1622 audio amp. >> >> >> >> The URL to the datasheet has a clear meaning, even if you don't click on >> >> it >> >> >> >> http://www.ti.com/document-viewer/OPA1622/datasheet >> >> >> >> If you want to save the PDF, you get this really cool file name by default >> >> >> >> opa1622.pdf >> >> >> >> wow, how did they do it? >> >> >> >> The first link even has a clear revision history list link in case you >> >> want to know what happened prior to November 2015. There appear to be a >> >> document control number at the top of the PDF too. >> >> >> >> So yeah, short story is ST is just stupid. >> > >> > So, it's better to have all the datasheets by part number? Try keeping multiple versions from one vendor, plus second sources, all with the same file name. Some jellybean parts have dozens of versions of a datasheet. >> >> Easy. LM9999_revA.pdf. >> >> I rename the meaningless data sheets. >> >> > >> > The head of Engineering at Microdyne was pushing for a new inventory system. His concept was that the part number for a 1K resistor would be 1002. He threw a real hissy fit when I pointed out that we stocked 14 different 1K resistors, and other components had a value of 1002. He wasn't there very long before they fired him. >> >> We had a series of very intense/interesting meetings about this. We >> settled on a telephone-number format, 123-4567 for all parts. We have >> a document SACRED.TXT that explains all the rules. >> >> > >> > All of our documentation had form numbers, unrelated to the product model numbers. They were filed by model number, but under ISO9001 we had to have traceability for all revisions. One board had 14 versions, and 14 test procedures. Every one ended up with over 100 lines that had to be marked N/A. I wrote a new procedure to cover every version of the board. It had 14 datasheets, one per version with no extra lines, plus a spare to allow for you to add new versions. The first page clearly stated to only use the specified datasheet for the version being tested. It reduced both the test time, and the paperwork to be stored. There are reasons to use other than obvious file naming. I am currently going through thousands of PDF files for test equipment. I am adding the actual document numbers to the file names, not just 'HP3325' since the A and B versions are different, but the manuals were revised multiple times. I have 180 GB of files, over 32,000 of them to sort, rename and >compare. >> >Some are duplicates, some are incomplete but I save every Electronics manual I come across. >> >> I know of one big company that assigns a 12-digit number to anything. >> Parts. Products. Drawings. Trucks. Buildings. Employees. >> >> I've worked for companies that just assigned the next sequential >> number to anything. If you know the PCB number, you had to look in the >> log book to find the schematic. The numbers were totally unrelated. > > >There were still reference to some trucks in the Microdyne inventory, along with all the test equipment. The founders of the company mad the Cal Lab keep their records in the database rather than their own system. It was on a Prime mini computer with about fifty terminals scattered all over the complex. Those trucks were gone, but they had been used to install their C-band equipment in head ends, and businesses before they shut down that product line.In our system, if you know any drawing or product part number, you automatically know all the related ones. We refer to people by their names. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc Science teaches us to doubt. Claude Bernard
Reply by ●May 20, 20202020-05-20
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 12:09:51 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:> > In our system, if you know any drawing or product part number, you > automatically know all the related ones. > > We refer to people by their namesSome boards and modules were used in multiple product lines, so your system wouldn't have worked at Microdyne. It was a different market, requiring different methods. For instance: The 700 and 1620-base models shared a lot of boards, and the front panel/embedded controller was also used in the custom system built for NOAA to control their 100 foot dishes that track their LEO birds. Each board or model had it's own base model number, and some had over 20 versions because customers wanted different options, Some of their first products were still in use 24/7 for over 30 years at NASA, tracking deep space satellites. They had never been turned off, or repaired. Completed units had custom build list, per the contract and all the test data for a unit was stored long term. The ISO inspectors spent most of their time looking at the files, since a record for one unit could be a half inch thick. That was why I pushed to change the test procedures to streamline them.It reduced the paperwork by about 25%. Some were rewritten from scratch, because the designer had the steps out of order, wasting test time. You had to do the same step several times before they were updated. A test fixture I redesigned educed the test time from 7.5 hours to 18 minutes and gave a more repeatable result. I know that you dislike trimpots, but they were used to adjust gan in many circuits. Even with 1% resistors and capacitors, they were often out of spec since 14, 1% components were used per video filter.
Reply by ●May 20, 20202020-05-20
John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:> > ST makes a nice little LDO, super-low dropout with an aux Vbias > supply. Saves me from rolling my own with an opamp and a mosfet. > > It's an ST1L08. > > So why is the data sheet file en.DM00123507.pdf ? >I think it is to allow good customers early access to the documents. You can guesss the document name from the device they announced. -- Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 1623569 ------- Fax. 06151 1623305 ---------
Reply by ●May 20, 20202020-05-20
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:07:53 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:>On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 12:09:51 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >> >> In our system, if you know any drawing or product part number, you >> automatically know all the related ones. >> >> We refer to people by their names > > > Some boards and modules were used in multiple product lines, so your system wouldn't have worked at Microdyne. It was a different market, requiring different methods. For instance: The 700 and 1620-base models shared a lot of boards, and the front panel/embedded controller was also used in the custom system built for NOAA to control their 100 foot dishes that track their LEO birds. Each board or model had it's own base model number, and some had over 20 versions because customers wanted different options, Some of their first products were still in use 24/7 for over 30 years at NASA, tracking deep space satellites. They had never been turned off, or repaired.We reuse boards, and assemblies, in multiple prducts. If there are different versions, each has its own dash number and associated BOM. That's standard mil practice. In the aircraft business, xxxxx was a drawing and xxxxx-1 was a thing, and xxxxx-2 was its mirror image thing. Odds and evens were mirrors, like wings maybe, without requiring two drawings. We don't mirror parts, so for us -1 and -2 are just assembly versions of some sort.> > Completed units had custom build list, per the contract and all the test data for a unit was stored long term. The ISO inspectors spent most of their time looking at the files, since a record for one unit could be a half inch thick. That was why I pushed to change the test procedures to streamline them.It reduced the paperwork by about 25%. Some were rewritten from scratch, because the designer had the steps out of order, wasting test time. You had to do the same step several times before they were updated. A test fixture I redesigned educed the test time from 7.5 hours to 18 minutes and gave a more repeatable result. I know that you dislike trimpots, but they were used to adjust gan in many circuits. Even with 1% resistors and capacitors, they were often out of spec since 14, 1% components were used per video filter.Most of our testing is automated now, and test reports get pushed up to a server, as both PDF and JSON files. We can easily extract statistics from the JSON files. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●May 21, 20202020-05-21
Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:> On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Tue, 19 May 2020 00:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell wrote: >> >> >On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 2:46:25 AM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote: wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 7:41:34 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> ST makes a nice little LDO, super-low dropout with an aux Vbias >> >> >> supply. Saves me from rolling my own with an opamp and a mosfet. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's an ST1L08. >> >> >> >> >> >> So why is the data sheet file en.DM00123507.pdf ? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > To track revisions. >> >> >> >> Not buying that as good reason to obfuscate document names. Part numbers >> >> for components are not random numbers only trackable with a database >> >> lookup. There's no reason document names have to be completely contextless >> >> to be "trackable". >> >> >> >> Let's see how a smart company that's been able to adapt over the years and >> >> still remain relevant does it. >> >> >> >> Texas Instruments has employees with IQs over 43 maintaining their >> >> website. I clicked around for a random part, the OPA1622 audio amp. >> >> >> >> The URL to the datasheet has a clear meaning, even if you don't click on >> >> it >> >> >> >> http://www.ti.com/document-viewer/OPA1622/datasheet >> >> >> >> If you want to save the PDF, you get this really cool file name by default >> >> >> >> opa1622.pdf >> >> >> >> wow, how did they do it? >> >> >> >> The first link even has a clear revision history list link in case you >> >> want to know what happened prior to November 2015. There appear to be a >> >> document control number at the top of the PDF too. >> >> >> >> So yeah, short story is ST is just stupid. >> > >> > So, it's better to have all the datasheets by part number? Try >> > keeping multiple versions from one vendor, plus second sources, all >> > with the same file name. Some jellybean parts have dozens of >> > versions of a datasheet. >> >> Easy. LM9999_revA.pdf. >> >> I rename the meaningless data sheets. >> >> > >> > The head of Engineering at Microdyne was pushing for a new inventory system. His concept was that the part number for a 1K resistor would be 1002. He threw a real hissy fit when I pointed out that we stocked 14 different 1K resistors, and other components had a value of 1002. He wasn't there very long before they fired him. >> >> We had a series of very intense/interesting meetings about this. We >> settled on a telephone-number format, 123-4567 for all parts. We have >> a document SACRED.TXT that explains all the rules. >> >> > >> > All of our documentation had form numbers, unrelated to the product >> >model numbers. They were filed by model number, but under ISO9001 we >> >had to have traceability for all revisions. One board had 14 versions, >> >and 14 test procedures. Every one ended up with over 100 lines that >> >had to be marked N/A. I wrote a new procedure to cover every version >> >of the board. It had 14 datasheets, one per version with no extra >> >lines, plus a spare to allow for you to add new versions. The first >> >page clearly stated to only use the specified datasheet for the >> >version being tested. It reduced both the test time, and the paperwork >> >to be stored. There are reasons to use other than obvious file naming. >> >I am currently going through thousands of PDF files for test >> >equipment. I am adding the actual document numbers to the file names, >> >not just 'HP3325' since the A and B versions are different, but the >> >manuals were revised multiple times. I have 180 GB of files, over >> >32,000 of them to sort, rename and compare. Some are duplicates, some >> >are incomplete but I save every Electronics manual I come across. >> >> I know of one big company that assigns a 12-digit number to anything. >> Parts. Products. Drawings. Trucks. Buildings. Employees. >> >> I've worked for companies that just assigned the next sequential >> number to anything. If you know the PCB number, you had to look in the >> log book to find the schematic. The numbers were totally unrelated. > >> There were still reference to some trucks in the Microdyne inventory, > along with all the test equipment. The founders of the company mad the > Cal Lab keep their records in the database rather than their own system. > It was on a Prime mini computer with about fifty terminals scattered all > over the complex. Those trucks were gone, but they had been used to > install their C-band equipment in head ends, and businesses before they > shut down that product line.What was the company with "dyne" in the name that made super high density connectors? I sort of miss the fad based company names of the past. "dyne" was hot, then anything spelled with a Z or X. Lots of "International" for stuff a little as having a sales rep in Canda or something as token. Trying to think of some other amusing naming patterns of the past.
