Dumb question regarding SMPS

[spamtrap1888]

If someone has a free moment, I'd like to know:

I'm on my third laptop right now. Every time I plugged my Dell's "fat
snake" into the wall, I drew quite an arc. The Lenovo's arc was not
noticeable, but now I get a noticeable arc with my new HP -- not as
big as the Dell's, however.

I know FA about switch mode power supplies, obviously, so I wonder

1. What produces the arc?
2. Why would different power supplies produce different arcs (does it
just depend on output power capability)?
3. Why is there no arc when I pull the plug from the outlet?

[Michael A. Terrell]

spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> If someone has a free moment, I'd like to know:
>
> I'm on my third laptop right now. Every time I plugged my Dell's "fat
> snake" into the wall, I drew quite an arc. The Lenovo's arc was not
> noticeable, but now I get a noticeable arc with my new HP -- not as
> big as the Dell's, however.
>
> I know FA about switch mode power supplies, obviously, so I wonder
>
> 1. What produces the arc?

The input filters are discharged and draw high current for a cycle or
two..

> 2. Why would different power supplies produce different arcs (does it
> just depend on output power capability)?

Variations in design. Some have a thermistor to limit the rush
current.

> 3. Why is there no arc when I pull the plug from the outlet?

The input filters are already charged.

[BeeJ]

It is caused by very poor and cheap design.
Be careful where you plug in as fumes and dust ignite with a bang.
Devices like this are not allowed in certain areas.

P.S. drawing arcs is not artistic license. lol



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[John Larkin]

Dumb switching power supplies have a bridge rectifier and a big
electrolytic filter capacitor. If you plug them in near the peak of
the AC line waveform, the charging current will spark.

Better supplies, with inrush limiters, or PFC (power factor corrected)
front-ends, have much less inrush charge.

Ask Jim for details. He is *so good* at designing switching power
supplies.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:03:12 -0700, John Larkin
<jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:52:15 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
><spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If someone has a free moment, I'd like to know:
>>
>>I'm on my third laptop right now. Every time I plugged my Dell's "fat
>>snake" into the wall, I drew quite an arc. The Lenovo's arc was not
>>noticeable, but now I get a noticeable arc with my new HP -- not as
>>big as the Dell's, however.
>>
>>I know FA about switch mode power supplies, obviously, so I wonder
>>
>>1. What produces the arc?
>>2. Why would different power supplies produce different arcs (does it
>>just depend on output power capability)?
>>3. Why is there no arc when I pull the plug from the outlet?
>
>Dumb switching power supplies have a bridge rectifier and a big
>electrolytic filter capacitor. If you plug them in near the peak of
>the AC line waveform, the charging current will spark.
>
>Better supplies, with inrush limiters, or PFC (power factor corrected)
>front-ends, have much less inrush charge.
>
>Ask Jim for details. He is *so good* at designing switching power
>supplies.

Indeed I am >:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[John Fields]

---
Wow!!!

A compliment from Larkin???

How unusual.

--
JF

[Jamie]

That verifies it.

Jamie

[Martin Riddle]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:5396789ln236d2okj...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:03:12 -0700, John Larkin
> <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:52:15 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>><spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If someone has a free moment, I'd like to know:
>>>
>>>I'm on my third laptop right now. Every time I plugged my Dell's "fat
>>>snake" into the wall, I drew quite an arc. The Lenovo's arc was not
>>>noticeable, but now I get a noticeable arc with my new HP -- not as
>>>big as the Dell's, however.
>>>
>>>I know FA about switch mode power supplies, obviously, so I wonder
>>>
>>>1. What produces the arc?
>>>2. Why would different power supplies produce different arcs (does it
>>>just depend on output power capability)?
>>>3. Why is there no arc when I pull the plug from the outlet?
>>
>>Dumb switching power supplies have a bridge rectifier and a big
>>electrolytic filter capacitor. If you plug them in near the peak of
>>the AC line waveform, the charging current will spark.
>>
>>Better supplies, with inrush limiters, or PFC (power factor corrected)
>>front-ends, have much less inrush charge.
>>
>>Ask Jim for details. He is *so good* at designing switching power
>>supplies.
>
> Indeed I am >:-)
>

I like the ucc28019a. works like a champ. Undervoltage lockout too ;)

Cheers

[John Larkin]

Sarcasm. He's screwed up everything he's posted so far.

He did apologize for calling me a fraud, when he'd messed up.

I wonder why he's designing a discrete SMPS for a Chinese company.
That's clearly not his skill set.

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:29:04 -0700, John Larkin

Not my normal task for them. It's been chips. Their power supply
designer went AWOL and I was asked to fix a flaky start-up... just a
"patch" in a BIG design :-( Just about there, in spite of what you
might think... had to remember stuff I haven't done since about 1985.

[Jim Thompson]

So does the L6561. But poorly documented and no model; and ST ignores
my pounding on their door >:-)

If I could make major changes I'd design ST out _forever_!

[Joerg]

Might be the new normal. I want to design in a National video driver,
LMH6722. Has a thermal pad under its belly. In the datasheet they forgot
to mention where its s'posed to be connected to. Probably V- but I'd
rather make sure. Filed a support ticket with the new owner TI on 10/2.
Got a service request number.

Today is 10/8 and (finally! ... or so I thought) there was a message in
the inbox this morning. A form letter, merely saying that, tada, a
service request number has been issued. New number: Same as the old number.

So I responded politely as to when I might be expecting an answer. No
response all day.

Hurumph!

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:29:45 -0700, Jim Thompson

Well, I'm not going to get you out of trouble on your next pass. Twice
is enough.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:59:46 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Get one and ohm it out.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc

www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[Joerg]

No kidding, that may be the only way :-(

Just made a CAD model for a 100-TQFP processor. Now I know why I chose
to become an analog guy and not a digital one.

[spamtrap1888]

On Oct 8, 6:59 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:21:35 -0400, "Martin Riddle"

> > <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote
> >> in messagenews:5396789ln236d2okj...@4ax.com...

They're either overworked or lazy, so they punted. Probably the
responders are graded based on how fast they turn around responses,
and on yours they already hit infinity.

[MrTallyman]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:06:21 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>No kidding, that may be the only way :-(
>
>Just made a CAD model for a 100-TQFP processor. Now I know why I chose
>to become an analog guy and not a digital one.
>
>--
>Regards, Joerg
>
>http://www.analogconsultants.com/

An idiot who can't even do simple connect-the-dots layouts.

Yep, you just reinforced anyone's faith in your abilities. Not.

[Joerg]

Lo and behold, just as I wanted to order samples I finally had a "You've
got mail" event. TI support said the pad is not connected to anything.
It can be left floating (which I'd never do, of course), connected to
V-, or connected to GND (which I'll do).

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:06:21 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Do you mean a PCB decal, or an actual Autocad sort of thing?

PADS makes IC decals really fast, for sort of standard things with
rows of numbered pins.

Are you doing 3D Solidworks sort of physical modeling? It is fun to
finally spin that stuff around in space, or take a virtual walk under
the IC pins.

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:37:25 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

The ground plane is a good place to dump heat, plus some additional
heat spreader patterns on other layers, when possible. The optimum via
pattern to do that isn't obvious. We've had debates around that issue.

I wish I had some software to help with that. We just sort of guess.

Data sheets should state the power pad electrical connection. Often
it's missing, or obscure.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc

www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[lang...@fonz.dk]

I was curious so I looked at the pdf with the pcb for the evaluation
board,
it doesn't even have a pad on the pcb for the thermal pad
V+ and V- goes under theat part from each end to the center pins

-Lasse

[Joerg]

The challenge is always with switchers. The upper FETs of a bridge or
sync-buck are easy, I just use a V+ plane. The lower ones hang on the
switched node with their heat-carrying drain tabs. That is a real pain
because normally you don't want to make that very capacitive.

> Data sheets should state the power pad electrical connection. Often
> it's missing, or obscure.
>

Modern datasheets are notoriously incomplete. Even uC with their
hundreds of pages. They discuss the logic stuff ad nauseam and then, if
you are lucky, you find one or too sparsely populated pages on the ADC.

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On 9 Okt., 17:28, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:06:21 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:59:46 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:21:35 -0400, "Martin Riddle"

> >>>> <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote

> >>>>> in messagenews:5396789ln236d2okj...@4ax.com...

we have everything modeled in inventor, pcb with components,
enclosure,
connectors etc.

so we know it will fit in the box, there's room for the connectors
etc.

-Lasse

[Joerg]

No, just the schematic library part and footprint. A hundred pins, most
of which have names like this:

(OC0A/OC1C/PCINT7)PB7

One typo and all hell can break loose because the routing resources in
those uCs are sparse and can be unforgiving. Just had a major
re-shuffling in one of them on another project, not because of an error
but for a feature change. When those get maxed out in port pins the
design can slow down as much as Van Ness at rush hour, mainly because of
routing compromises.

[Joerg]

Yikes!

Don't know about this one but sometimes with eval boards I have the
feeling that they aren't always super great. I remember one where I
fired it up, ran it with standard load and then caught a whiff of an
"amperage smell". Followed by smoke. That was the snubber resistors
turning themselves into charcoal. Another board ... one minute, two
minutes, three ... *PHHHHUT* ... a diode had left its workplace without
prior authorization to do so. A quick calc revealed a 3x or so overload.
Luckily I found its pieces on the floor before a guide dog puppy we had
for a week.

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:40:16 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Like, how much power does the ADC reference need? Not a clue.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser drivers and controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On 9 Okt., 18:57, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

looks like they just more or less copied the layout from the packages
that don't have a thermal pad

> Don't know about this one but sometimes with eval boards I have the
> feeling that they aren't always super great. I remember one where I
> fired it up, ran it with standard load and then caught a whiff of an
> "amperage smell". Followed by smoke. That was the snubber resistors
> turning themselves into charcoal. Another board ... one minute, two
> minutes, three ... *PHHHHUT* ... a diode had left its workplace without
> prior authorization to do so. A quick calc revealed a 3x or so overload.
> Luckily I found its pieces on the floor before a guide dog puppy we had
> for a week.
>

strange how eval board are often like that, would think they wanted to
present
their part in the best possible way

can only guess they assume those who need the performance will build
their own
board anyway and those who buy the eval board generally won't notice

-Lasse

[Joerg]

Wot reference? Sometimes they think that VCC _is_ a good-enough
reference. Sometimes we've had to do ratiometric conversion just because
there wasn't even a pin to pipe in your own reference.

[Phil Hobbs]

Considering the quality of most uC ADCs, they're not far wrong. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Joerg]

Actually some are not bad at all. Otherwise they would not pass muster
with agencies when they are placed in metering applications. Often it is
important to halt processor activity during a measurement, that can make
a huge difference. This is what we'll likely do for the project I am
working on right now.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

You *should* be able to either grab the names from a spreadsheet or
cut-n-paste from a datasheet. The vendors often have models already built
that can be used for a starting place, too. OTOH, our CAD people demand that
chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:40:16 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Or a hundred pages on register settings and one or two pages on the hardware
itself; worse, the hundred pages isn't even complete.

[Joerg]

Only for some CAD packages, if at all. My CAD has a lot of the Atmels,
just not this big one.


> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that

> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).

I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course. And I never
use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.

[Joerg]

Yup :-(

Very classic omission: Do the ports have input hysteresis or not? And if
yes, how much? Once the answer from the tech support engineer, after
long head-scratching, was: "Good question! I'll have to inquire about
that at the factory". Oh man ...

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On 9 Okt., 22:53, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> > On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:49:57 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> John Larkin wrote:

> >>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:06:21 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:59:46 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>

> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:21:35 -0400, "Martin Riddle"

> >>>>>>> <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote

> >>>>>>>> in messagenews:5396789ln236d2okj...@4ax.com...

which one?

>
> >                                 ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
> > chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
> > partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>
> I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
> front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
> Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course. And I never
> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>

isn't reliabily and BGAs something that was perfected many years ago?

for something like a big FPGA I think it it makes sense to put core
power, jtag
configuration and such on one symbol and each bank on a separate
symbol

-Lasse

[Joerg]

It's the ATMega2560.

>>> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
>>> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
>>> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>> I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
>> front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
>> Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course. And I never
>> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>>
>
> isn't reliabily and BGAs something that was perfected many years ago?
>

I do not trust them. Seen way too much grief with BGA. Most of all, I do
not like something where solder connections cannot be inspected with
reasonable effort. Large rigid structures with next to nothing in
compliance on a flexible material (FR4) are IMHO a bad idea.

> for something like a big FPGA I think it it makes sense to put core
> power, jtag
> configuration and such on one symbol and each bank on a separate
> symbol
>

That may be ok. But I really do not like it when, for example, the
various UARTs of a uC are sprinkled across several schematics pages.

[John Larkin]

Buy me enough beer, and I'll tell you tales of polynomial curve
fits... one for each uP on a board with 12 uPs.

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:55:43 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

I get the feeling that complex uP chips contain big blocks of
purchased IP, sort of shoveled into the cement mixer. ADCs, Ethernet,
USB, PCIe, whatever. Maybe the factory can't help much.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser drivers and controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Not the CAD companies. The chip manufacturer often has CAD symbols and
footprints for the popular CAD packages. They usually support the common
packages. Others can often import the data from that data.

>> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
>> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
>> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>
>
>I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
>front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.

Of course not. All the wheels go on page-1 (with the tires/wheels/and nuts in
the hierarchy on page 2-5) and the Engine goes on page 12, with the exhaust on
page 88.

>Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course.

Gates and opamps are drawn symbolically but everything else is a single
physical square box. UGH! It makes *really* ugly schematics. Impossible to
follow.

>And I never
>use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.

Nonsense. I did a bunch of MIL stuff (Naval weapons system) with 1k pin BGAs.
Fine pitch isn't so good but there's nothing wrong with >.8mm BGA packages.
Doom comes before the design starts, without them. No project = no paycheck.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:30:10 -0700 (PDT), "lang...@fonz.dk" <lang...@fonz.dk>
wrote:

Sure, at least in the larger packages. Joerg is living in the '80s. They
even worked well then but many didn't have the process down.

>for something like a big FPGA I think it it makes sense to put core
>power, jtag
>configuration and such on one symbol and each bank on a separate
>symbol

Agree 100%. Even "small" 144-pin QFPs are a mess when they're shown as one
big box on a page with wires everywhere. Joerg probably doesn't like busses,
either (someone here objected to them a while back).

I often break FPGAs up by I/O bank, if I haven't got the design very far
along. If know how it's going to flow, I'll break it up that way. I can
still do that with BGAs, but not QFPs or QFNs. The CPoE has some really
strange ideas on how a schematic is to look. The CAD system sucks, too, but
that's a different topic. ;-)

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On 10 Okt., 00:46, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:55:43 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:40:16 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>> John Larkin wrote:

> >>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:37:25 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>

I've done a few big SoCs in a previous job, and that is kinda how it
works with
both inhouse and purchased IP, and for every new design the blocks get
a few
tweaks to meet some new requirement and in the end no one really know
how they
should work

-Lasse

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

I just got one that had *every* power/current value listed as TBD. Nice. It's
fun designing the power system with such a complete spec.

[Joerg]

I know that IC mfgs provide lib parts at times. But I use a CAD that is
not so popular out here. It has its downsides such as this, but it has
an upside that wipes out any and all downsides: No crashes.

>>> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
>>> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
>>> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>>
>> I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
>> front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
>
> Of course not. All the wheels go on page-1 (with the tires/wheels/and nuts in
> the hierarchy on page 2-5) and the Engine goes on page 12, with the exhaust on
> page 88.
>
>> Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course.
>
> Gates and opamps are drawn symbolically but everything else is a single
> physical square box. UGH! It makes *really* ugly schematics. Impossible to
> follow.
>

That's in fact how most people want schematics. Including myself.

>
>> And I never
>> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>
> Nonsense. I did a bunch of MIL stuff (Naval weapons system) with 1k pin BGAs.

On alumina and other higher tech material, yes. On FR4 I simply will not
do it. If the client insists, ok, but then the result is their
responsibility.

> Fine pitch isn't so good but there's nothing wrong with >.8mm BGA packages.
> Doom comes before the design starts, without them. No project = no paycheck.
>

Well, I am quite flooded with work despite the fact that I do not use
BGA. Simulating right now to see whether I can use an MSOP sans thermal
pad instead of a leadless QFN with pad. Nothing beats the gentle
compliance of leads on a package.

If it goes on like this through winter I won't need to heat the office,
the computer does that.

[Joerg]

Actually I do like buses a lot. Especially the ones with comfy seats and
WiFi on board :-) ... Just kidding, I do like buses on schematics.

> I often break FPGAs up by I/O bank, if I haven't got the design very far
> along. If know how it's going to flow, I'll break it up that way. I can
> still do that with BGAs, but not QFPs or QFNs. The CPoE has some really
> strange ideas on how a schematic is to look. The CAD system sucks, too, but
> that's a different topic. ;-)
>

Ever dealt with Asian-style schematics? Oh, there is still some white on
the page, let's cram the preamp in there. Then you start following a
line clear across the page and it goes to ... ground!

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

It can't import data from any other format? Ours can't but I don't expect
much from it (and I'm always disappointed).

>>>> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
>>>> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
>>>> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>>>
>>> I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
>>> front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
>>
>> Of course not. All the wheels go on page-1 (with the tires/wheels/and nuts in
>> the hierarchy on page 2-5) and the Engine goes on page 12, with the exhaust on
>> page 88.
>>
>>> Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course.
>>
>> Gates and opamps are drawn symbolically but everything else is a single
>> physical square box. UGH! It makes *really* ugly schematics. Impossible to
>> follow.
>>
>
>That's in fact how most people want schematics. Including myself.

Most? GOt a cite for that? None of the companies I've worked for wanted
anything that ugly. It makes the schematic unreadable.

>>
>>> And I never
>>> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>>
>> Nonsense. I did a bunch of MIL stuff (Naval weapons system) with 1k pin BGAs.
>
>
>On alumina and other higher tech material, yes. On FR4 I simply will not
>do it. If the client insists, ok, but then the result is their
>responsibility.

Nope. FR4. The is *no* problem. In fact, they're more reliable than other
packages. They do have to be done right, of course. Actually, at the PPoE
(small company) they had far fewer problems with BGAs than they did with any
other package. They didn't have an XRAY machine, either.

>> Fine pitch isn't so good but there's nothing wrong with >.8mm BGA packages.
>> Doom comes before the design starts, without them. No project = no paycheck.
>>
>
>Well, I am quite flooded with work despite the fact that I do not use
>BGA. Simulating right now to see whether I can use an MSOP sans thermal
>pad instead of a leadless QFN with pad. Nothing beats the gentle
>compliance of leads on a package.

You do tiny stuff. Without big DSPs, I don't have a job.

>If it goes on like this through winter I won't need to heat the office,
>the computer does that.

Global warming is finally coming to CA?

[Joerg]

It can import but let's put it that way: My experience with that is very
mixed. I wouldn't trust it.

>>>>> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
>>>>> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
>>>>> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>>>> I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
>>>> front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
>>> Of course not. All the wheels go on page-1 (with the tires/wheels/and nuts in
>>> the hierarchy on page 2-5) and the Engine goes on page 12, with the exhaust on
>>> page 88.
>>>
>>>> Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course.
>>> Gates and opamps are drawn symbolically but everything else is a single
>>> physical square box. UGH! It makes *really* ugly schematics. Impossible to
>>> follow.
>>>
>> That's in fact how most people want schematics. Including myself.
>
> Most? GOt a cite for that? None of the companies I've worked for wanted
> anything that ugly. It makes the schematic unreadable.
>

Most as in pretty much all my clients. I don't think there is any
opinion poll data for that available.

I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
but the uC or DSP is one big block.

>>>> And I never
>>>> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>>> Nonsense. I did a bunch of MIL stuff (Naval weapons system) with 1k pin BGAs.
>>
>> On alumina and other higher tech material, yes. On FR4 I simply will not
>> do it. If the client insists, ok, but then the result is their
>> responsibility.
>
> Nope. FR4. The is *no* problem. In fact, they're more reliable than other
> packages.

As you tend to say, I do not buy it.


> They do have to be done right, of course. ...


Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
their laptops give up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM

Just for giggles, someone came up with a real low-tech repair method:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-ZFCsZB7T8


> ... Actually, at the PPoE

> (small company) they had far fewer problems with BGAs than they did with any
> other package. They didn't have an XRAY machine, either.
>
>>> Fine pitch isn't so good but there's nothing wrong with >.8mm BGA packages.
>>> Doom comes before the design starts, without them. No project = no paycheck.
>>>
>> Well, I am quite flooded with work despite the fact that I do not use
>> BGA. Simulating right now to see whether I can use an MSOP sans thermal
>> pad instead of a leadless QFN with pad. Nothing beats the gentle
>> compliance of leads on a package.
>
> You do tiny stuff. Without big DSPs, I don't have a job.
>

Then I do not want your job :-)

>> If it goes on like this through winter I won't need to heat the office,
>> the computer does that.
>
> Global warming is finally coming to CA?

I sure hope so. However, since I do not trust that we bought the record
qty of five cords of almond again for this year. Blew through the
complete stack the last two seasons already, literally done to the last
sticks. In 2000 I thought that was impossible, back then two cords was fine.

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:39:33 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Our in-house BGA placement success rate has been 100%. We have had a
couple of problems after multiple rework/replacements. BGAs seem to be
a lot more reliable than fine-pitch leaded chips.

Most of all, I do
>not like something where solder connections cannot be inspected with
>reasonable effort.

Another virtue of BGAs!

[Mike Perkins]

On 09/10/2012 23:57, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:30:10 -0700 (PDT), "lang...@fonz.dk" <lang...@fonz.dk>
> wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> isn't reliabily and BGAs something that was perfected many years ago?
>
> Sure, at least in the larger packages. Joerg is living in the '80s. They
> even worked well then but many didn't have the process down.
>

I agree that on the whole they are reliable, but they have a reputation
in some circles through some manufacturers cutting corners. You only
have to look at the reliability of Xboxes!


--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

[Joerg]

But your stuff probably doesn't occasionally get nailed to the runway
with a loud ker-crunch sound and several tires blowing out.

> Most of all, I do
>> not like something where solder connections cannot be inspected with
>> reasonable effort.
>
> Another virtue of BGAs!
>

Hmm, I don't see that one. I want to be able to inspect. It doesn't
protect against reverse engineering since those guys have every tool
imaginable at their disposal.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Very few Gs.

>> Most of all, I do
>>> not like something where solder connections cannot be inspected with
>>> reasonable effort.
>>
>> Another virtue of BGAs!
>>
>
>Hmm, I don't see that one. I want to be able to inspect. It doesn't
>protect against reverse engineering since those guys have every tool
>imaginable at their disposal.

XRAY, if you must. We have one in our lab but it's never used.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Busses where the contents are not similarly named (not Bus[0:11], rather
BusWr, BusRd, BusEn,...)?

>
>> I often break FPGAs up by I/O bank, if I haven't got the design very far
>> along. If know how it's going to flow, I'll break it up that way. I can
>> still do that with BGAs, but not QFPs or QFNs. The CPoE has some really
>> strange ideas on how a schematic is to look. The CAD system sucks, too, but
>> that's a different topic. ;-)
>>
>
>Ever dealt with Asian-style schematics? Oh, there is still some white on
>the page, let's cram the preamp in there. Then you start following a
>line clear across the page and it goes to ... ground!

I work for an Asian company. I think their schematics *suck*. No hierarchy,
even.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:07:58 +0100, Mike Perkins <sp...@spam.com> wrote:

>On 09/10/2012 23:57, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:30:10 -0700 (PDT), "lang...@fonz.dk" <lang...@fonz.dk>
>> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>> isn't reliabily and BGAs something that was perfected many years ago?
>>
>> Sure, at least in the larger packages. Joerg is living in the '80s. They
>> even worked well then but many didn't have the process down.
>>
>
>I agree that on the whole they are reliable, but they have a reputation
>in some circles through some manufacturers cutting corners. You only
>have to look at the reliability of Xboxes!

It can't be cutting corners, rather incompetence. My experience with BGAs is
the same as JL's - far more reliable than other fine-pitched packages. Even
the .5mm BGA went flawlessly, even though the process guy didn't think they
could do it.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Trust, but verify. ;-)

>>>>>> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
>>>>>> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
>>>>>> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>>>>> I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
>>>>> front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
>>>> Of course not. All the wheels go on page-1 (with the tires/wheels/and nuts in
>>>> the hierarchy on page 2-5) and the Engine goes on page 12, with the exhaust on
>>>> page 88.
>>>>
>>>>> Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course.
>>>> Gates and opamps are drawn symbolically but everything else is a single
>>>> physical square box. UGH! It makes *really* ugly schematics. Impossible to
>>>> follow.
>>>>
>>> That's in fact how most people want schematics. Including myself.
>>
>> Most? GOt a cite for that? None of the companies I've worked for wanted
>> anything that ugly. It makes the schematic unreadable.
>>
>
>Most as in pretty much all my clients. I don't think there is any
>opinion poll data for that available.

Sorta my point, though if I'd shown up with a schematic like that, no one
would have hired me. They want their documentation to describe how the widget
works.

>I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
>they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
>but the uC or DSP is one big block.

Nothing else fits on the page with the "big block". Might just as well have a
netlist.

>>>>> And I never
>>>>> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>>>> Nonsense. I did a bunch of MIL stuff (Naval weapons system) with 1k pin BGAs.
>>>
>>> On alumina and other higher tech material, yes. On FR4 I simply will not
>>> do it. If the client insists, ok, but then the result is their
>>> responsibility.
>>
>> Nope. FR4. The is *no* problem. In fact, they're more reliable than other
>> packages.
>
>
>As you tend to say, I do not buy it.

Of course you don't. It's a fact, though. BGAs are a far superior package.
There are some problems with thick boards and fine-pitched BGAs but I try to
stay at .8mm or above. .5mm can be done but it gets dicey with more than six
layers or so. The boards get pretty thin, too (1mm and less).

>> They do have to be done right, of course. ...
>
>
>Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
>employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
>their laptops give up:

Probably. Nothing would surprise me from the PC Co.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM

Sorry can't watch videos. My laptop will blow up. ;-)

>Just for giggles, someone came up with a real low-tech repair method:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-ZFCsZB7T8
>
>
>> ... Actually, at the PPoE
>> (small company) they had far fewer problems with BGAs than they did with any
>> other package. They didn't have an XRAY machine, either.
>>
>>>> Fine pitch isn't so good but there's nothing wrong with >.8mm BGA packages.
>>>> Doom comes before the design starts, without them. No project = no paycheck.
>>>>
>>> Well, I am quite flooded with work despite the fact that I do not use
>>> BGA. Simulating right now to see whether I can use an MSOP sans thermal
>>> pad instead of a leadless QFN with pad. Nothing beats the gentle
>>> compliance of leads on a package.
>>
>> You do tiny stuff. Without big DSPs, I don't have a job.
>>
>
>Then I do not want your job :-)

Different strokes.

>>> If it goes on like this through winter I won't need to heat the office,
>>> the computer does that.
>>
>> Global warming is finally coming to CA?
>
>
>I sure hope so. However, since I do not trust that we bought the record
>qty of five cords of almond again for this year. Blew through the
>complete stack the last two seasons already, literally done to the last
>sticks. In 2000 I thought that was impossible, back then two cords was fine.

I thought you bought five cords last year? I've got two houses with heat
pumps now. No more wood stoves for me (we do have a gas fireplace in the old
house and I'll probably put gas logs in this one).

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:44:55 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>

You don't have to inspect them!

We actually do inspect the 2 or 3 outer rows of balls, with a little
optical prism camera thing. But that's just to get an idea of how
things went, not to literally inspect every joint. But our yield is
100%, so the inspection is kind of a ritual.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[John Larkin]

This is cool:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53724080/PCBs/Stencil_Thing.jpg

If you need to replace a BGA, pull the old one off, and then stick
that orange (kapton) thing down on the board. Squeegee paste onto it
(with a tiny x-acto knife squeegee) and scrape off the excess. Place
the new BGA and reflow the whole board. The kapton thing stays.

We have one board where we replaced a 780-ball FPGA three times.

[Joerg]

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:39:23 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:09:19 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:53:04 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

[...]

>>>> I know that IC mfgs provide lib parts at times. But I use a CAD that is
>>>> not so popular out here. It has its downsides such as this, but it has
>>>> an upside that wipes out any and all downsides: No crashes.
>>> It can't import data from any other format? Ours can't but I don't expect
>>> much from it (and I'm always disappointed).
>>>
>> It can import but let's put it that way: My experience with that is very
>> mixed. I wouldn't trust it.
>
> Trust, but verify. ;-)
>

:-)

Then it doesn't save time. If I have to verify all names, pin numbers
and ERC pin functions I might as well roll my own from scratch.

>>>>>>> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
>>>>>>> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
>>>>>>> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>>>>>> I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
>>>>>> front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
>>>>> Of course not. All the wheels go on page-1 (with the tires/wheels/and nuts in
>>>>> the hierarchy on page 2-5) and the Engine goes on page 12, with the exhaust on
>>>>> page 88.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course.
>>>>> Gates and opamps are drawn symbolically but everything else is a single
>>>>> physical square box. UGH! It makes *really* ugly schematics. Impossible to
>>>>> follow.
>>>>>
>>>> That's in fact how most people want schematics. Including myself.
>>> Most? GOt a cite for that? None of the companies I've worked for wanted
>>> anything that ugly. It makes the schematic unreadable.
>>>
>> Most as in pretty much all my clients. I don't think there is any
>> opinion poll data for that available.
>
> Sorta my point, though if I'd shown up with a schematic like that, no one
> would have hired me. They want their documentation to describe how the widget
> works.
>

My schematics do describe how it works. Analog guys live that way.

>> I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
>> they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
>> but the uC or DSP is one big block.
>
> Nothing else fits on the page with the "big block". Might just as well have a
> netlist.
>

That's perfectly fine. There will be a net name saying, for example,
PULSECNT and the two letters uC underneath. Then everyone with enough
smarts will know that this goes to sheet 7 where the big fat uC lives.
It is not necessary and would be rather confusing to whack out timer #2
and then place it on sheet 2 where this net is. You'd be looking at
sheet 7 and ask your self "There's pins missing here. Where the heck did
all the timers go?".

>>>>>> And I never
>>>>>> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>>>>> Nonsense. I did a bunch of MIL stuff (Naval weapons system) with 1k pin BGAs.
>>>> On alumina and other higher tech material, yes. On FR4 I simply will not
>>>> do it. If the client insists, ok, but then the result is their
>>>> responsibility.
>>> Nope. FR4. The is *no* problem. In fact, they're more reliable than other
>>> packages.
>>
>> As you tend to say, I do not buy it.
>
> Of course you don't. It's a fact, though. BGAs are a far superior package.
> There are some problems with thick boards and fine-pitched BGAs but I try to
> stay at .8mm or above. .5mm can be done but it gets dicey with more than six
> layers or so. The boards get pretty thin, too (1mm and less).
>

The real fact is that whole small businesses have sprung up because of
all the BGA failures. Usually one-man shops. In our area their are
mobile, they often buy retired ambulances, put in a work bench, then
drive to the customers with the BGA problems.

>>> They do have to be done right, of course. ...
>>
>> Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
>> employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
>> their laptops give up:
>
> Probably. Nothing would surprise me from the PC Co.
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM
>
> Sorry can't watch videos. My laptop will blow up. ;-)
>

It's an IBM T40 with BGA failure. Lots of other brands have the same issues.

>> Just for giggles, someone came up with a real low-tech repair method:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-ZFCsZB7T8
>>
>>
>>> ... Actually, at the PPoE
>>> (small company) they had far fewer problems with BGAs than they did with any
>>> other package. They didn't have an XRAY machine, either.
>>>
>>>>> Fine pitch isn't so good but there's nothing wrong with >.8mm BGA packages.
>>>>> Doom comes before the design starts, without them. No project = no paycheck.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, I am quite flooded with work despite the fact that I do not use
>>>> BGA. Simulating right now to see whether I can use an MSOP sans thermal
>>>> pad instead of a leadless QFN with pad. Nothing beats the gentle
>>>> compliance of leads on a package.
>>> You do tiny stuff. Without big DSPs, I don't have a job.
>>>
>> Then I do not want your job :-)
>
> Different strokes.
>
>>>> If it goes on like this through winter I won't need to heat the office,
>>>> the computer does that.
>>> Global warming is finally coming to CA?
>>
>> I sure hope so. However, since I do not trust that we bought the record
>> qty of five cords of almond again for this year. Blew through the
>> complete stack the last two seasons already, literally done to the last
>> sticks. In 2000 I thought that was impossible, back then two cords was fine.
>
> I thought you bought five cords last year? I've got two houses with heat
> pumps now. No more wood stoves for me (we do have a gas fireplace in the old
> house and I'll probably put gas logs in this one).
>

That's why I wrote "again". We bought five cords also last year, and
blew through all of that. Lots of people in CA also have heat pumps but
that was a major mistake. Because the state government became hardcore
leftist so now they tax the dickens out of these poor folks, via reverse
tiers on the power bill. A meager baseline quantity costs around
15c/kWh. With a heatpump or A/C you exceed that within days and then
prices quickly shoot up to something like 35c/kWh. I knew an old lady
who was very skinny, so needed it warm in the house in her 90's. She
paid north of $1000/month in winter. That's insane, I won't do that.

[Joerg]

If it's clear what the bus does I am ok with that. But I prefer
BUSWR[0:11], BUSRD[0:11], BUSEN[0:3], and so on. Consistency is
important in schematics.

>>> I often break FPGAs up by I/O bank, if I haven't got the design very far
>>> along. If know how it's going to flow, I'll break it up that way. I can
>>> still do that with BGAs, but not QFPs or QFNs. The CPoE has some really
>>> strange ideas on how a schematic is to look. The CAD system sucks, too, but
>>> that's a different topic. ;-)
>>>
>> Ever dealt with Asian-style schematics? Oh, there is still some white on
>> the page, let's cram the preamp in there. Then you start following a
>> line clear across the page and it goes to ... ground!
>
> I work for an Asian company. I think their schematics *suck*. No hierarchy,
> even.
>

You have my sympathies :-)

[Phil Hobbs]

Done. But we'll have to interleave the story and the beer, or else the
curves will get wigglier as we go on. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:30:20 -0400, Phil Hobbs

A LPTM can out-drink a SETM every time.

Did I ever show you my pen-and-cocktail-napkin-and-beer chromatography
thing?

--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc

www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[Phil Hobbs]

I don't think so. Another one of those experiments that becomes less
quantitative as the evening progresses.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Huh? Do you have twelve bus writes?

>>>> I often break FPGAs up by I/O bank, if I haven't got the design very far
>>>> along. If know how it's going to flow, I'll break it up that way. I can
>>>> still do that with BGAs, but not QFPs or QFNs. The CPoE has some really
>>>> strange ideas on how a schematic is to look. The CAD system sucks, too, but
>>>> that's a different topic. ;-)
>>>>
>>> Ever dealt with Asian-style schematics? Oh, there is still some white on
>>> the page, let's cram the preamp in there. Then you start following a
>>> line clear across the page and it goes to ... ground!
>>
>> I work for an Asian company. I think their schematics *suck*. No hierarchy,
>> even.
>>
>
>You have my sympathies :-)

Their processed really are terrible (surprised me!). One particularly bad
point is grounds. If a connector has a shield connection, for instance,
that's not shown in the datasheet as a pin, it's not shown on the schematic.
The layout the layout person has to manually connect it to GND (or wherever).
It's up to the next layout guy to remember to do it, too. Worse, if I do
place a ground pin for it in the symbol library and someone else comes along
and uses that part, they'll remove the ground pin. *Poof*, mine is gone too.
No warning, nothing.

Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.

Yes, it sucks.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:43:18 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:39:23 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:09:19 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:53:04 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>
>[...]
>
>>>>> I know that IC mfgs provide lib parts at times. But I use a CAD that is
>>>>> not so popular out here. It has its downsides such as this, but it has
>>>>> an upside that wipes out any and all downsides: No crashes.
>>>> It can't import data from any other format? Ours can't but I don't expect
>>>> much from it (and I'm always disappointed).
>>>>
>>> It can import but let's put it that way: My experience with that is very
>>> mixed. I wouldn't trust it.
>>
>> Trust, but verify. ;-)
>>
>
>:-)
>
>Then it doesn't save time. If I have to verify all names, pin numbers
>and ERC pin functions I might as well roll my own from scratch.

It saves a *lot* of time. You have to type every one in and *still* check
(probably a few times by different people) to make sure you didn't make a
mistake.

>>>>>>>> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
>>>>>>>> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
>>>>>>>> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>>>>>>> I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
>>>>>>> front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
>>>>>> Of course not. All the wheels go on page-1 (with the tires/wheels/and nuts in
>>>>>> the hierarchy on page 2-5) and the Engine goes on page 12, with the exhaust on
>>>>>> page 88.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course.
>>>>>> Gates and opamps are drawn symbolically but everything else is a single
>>>>>> physical square box. UGH! It makes *really* ugly schematics. Impossible to
>>>>>> follow.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's in fact how most people want schematics. Including myself.
>>>> Most? GOt a cite for that? None of the companies I've worked for wanted
>>>> anything that ugly. It makes the schematic unreadable.
>>>>
>>> Most as in pretty much all my clients. I don't think there is any
>>> opinion poll data for that available.
>>
>> Sorta my point, though if I'd shown up with a schematic like that, no one
>> would have hired me. They want their documentation to describe how the widget
>> works.
>>
>
>My schematics do describe how it works. Analog guys live that way.

If there is a huge box on the page and nothing else, you are *not* describing
how it works. It's no better than a netlist. Worse, actually, because you
have to trace wires to find out which signals they're tied to.

>>> I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
>>> they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
>>> but the uC or DSP is one big block.
>>
>> Nothing else fits on the page with the "big block". Might just as well have a
>> netlist.
>>
>
>That's perfectly fine. There will be a net name saying, for example,
>PULSECNT and the two letters uC underneath. Then everyone with enough
>smarts will know that this goes to sheet 7 where the big fat uC lives.

What it's hooked to is anyone's guess, though.

>It is not necessary and would be rather confusing to whack out timer #2
>and then place it on sheet 2 where this net is. You'd be looking at
>sheet 7 and ask your self "There's pins missing here. Where the heck did
>all the timers go?".

A hundred blocks, perhaps. A few, not so much. Separating all the power,
grounds, and JTAG, for instance, cleans up the schematic a *lot*. Breaking out
the memory controller (or two - separate pages) goes a long way to
readability. Perhaps all the A/Ds on a block and timers on another. There are
reasonable ways to divide things up functionally. It's much like the argument
for hierarchy. One big box simply sucks.

>>>>>>> And I never
>>>>>>> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>>>>>> Nonsense. I did a bunch of MIL stuff (Naval weapons system) with 1k pin BGAs.
>>>>> On alumina and other higher tech material, yes. On FR4 I simply will not
>>>>> do it. If the client insists, ok, but then the result is their
>>>>> responsibility.
>>>> Nope. FR4. The is *no* problem. In fact, they're more reliable than other
>>>> packages.
>>>
>>> As you tend to say, I do not buy it.
>>
>> Of course you don't. It's a fact, though. BGAs are a far superior package.
>> There are some problems with thick boards and fine-pitched BGAs but I try to
>> stay at .8mm or above. .5mm can be done but it gets dicey with more than six
>> layers or so. The boards get pretty thin, too (1mm and less).
>>
>
>The real fact is that whole small businesses have sprung up because of
>all the BGA failures. Usually one-man shops. In our area their are
>mobile, they often buy retired ambulances, put in a work bench, then
>drive to the customers with the BGA problems.

Nonsense. BGAs are often worth salvaging so sure there's a business in doing
so. They are more difficult to replace so maybe there's a business there,
too. They are *not* less reliable than QFPs. Just the opposite, in fact.

>>>> They do have to be done right, of course. ...
>>>
>>> Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
>>> employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
>>> their laptops give up:
>>
>> Probably. Nothing would surprise me from the PC Co.
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM
>>
>> Sorry can't watch videos. My laptop will blow up. ;-)
>>
>
>It's an IBM T40 with BGA failure. Lots of other brands have the same issues.

QFPs have never failed? I can tell you otherwise!

You said "record qty of five cords", implying that it was less last year.

>Lots of people in CA also have heat pumps but
>that was a major mistake. Because the state government became hardcore
>leftist so now they tax the dickens out of these poor folks, via reverse
>tiers on the power bill. A meager baseline quantity costs around
>15c/kWh. With a heatpump or A/C you exceed that within days and then
>prices quickly shoot up to something like 35c/kWh. I knew an old lady
>who was very skinny, so needed it warm in the house in her 90's. She
>paid north of $1000/month in winter. That's insane, I won't do that.

Ouch. My heat pumps cost $.07/kWh(GA) and $.09(AL) during the heating season.
My power bill approaches $200 (each place, if they were both running) during
January and July. It's about half that in the off months so the heat portion
of the bill is about $100 (maybe $120).

[John Larkin]

We show anything electrically connectable (like connector shell tabs,
or IC power pads) as pins. Our RJ45 may have 12 pins, 8 signals and 4
grounds. We also show mounting holes on the schematic as parts, and
ground them or float them.

In PADS, when you put a part on a board it imports it from the library
and includes it in the current design files. If you go from, say, rev
A to rev B on a schematic:pcb set, it does NOT refresh from the
library unless you explicitly tell it to. So library changes don't
break an existing, working design.

We have a few legacy parts with hidden VCC/ground pins (right-click to
see what nets they connect to) but lately we show everything.

>
>Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
>thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
>These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.

We never delete a part from our database, but some parts are
"retired." They are physically removed from the stock room, and either
disposed of, or stashed elsewhere in case engineering might want to
play with a few for some reason.

>
>Yes, it sucks.
>

It's shocking how sloppy some people are about stuff like this, about
fully documenting things. But it's not a simple problem to handle
revs, dash numbers, ECOs, BOMs, schematics, assembly drawings,
manuals, test procedures, all that.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser drivers and controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[Joerg]

That usually means how many lines a bus has. Yes, some of mine have 12
lines.

>>>>> I often break FPGAs up by I/O bank, if I haven't got the design very far
>>>>> along. If know how it's going to flow, I'll break it up that way. I can
>>>>> still do that with BGAs, but not QFPs or QFNs. The CPoE has some really
>>>>> strange ideas on how a schematic is to look. The CAD system sucks, too, but
>>>>> that's a different topic. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Ever dealt with Asian-style schematics? Oh, there is still some white on
>>>> the page, let's cram the preamp in there. Then you start following a
>>>> line clear across the page and it goes to ... ground!
>>> I work for an Asian company. I think their schematics *suck*. No hierarchy,
>>> even.
>>>
>> You have my sympathies :-)
>
> Their processed really are terrible (surprised me!). One particularly bad
> point is grounds. If a connector has a shield connection, for instance,
> that's not shown in the datasheet as a pin, it's not shown on the schematic.
> The layout the layout person has to manually connect it to GND (or wherever).
> It's up to the next layout guy to remember to do it, too. Worse, if I do
> place a ground pin for it in the symbol library and someone else comes along
> and uses that part, they'll remove the ground pin. *Poof*, mine is gone too.
> No warning, nothing.
>

Yikes! That can quickly result in egg in the face, at the EMC lab.

> Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
> thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
> These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.
>

If you look long enough you probably still find rectifier tubes,
nuvistors and Leyden jars in there.


> Yes, it sucks.
>

I bet it does. Now I am glad to be self-employed :-)

[Joerg]

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:43:18 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:39:23 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:09:19 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:53:04 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>

[...]

>>>>>>>>> ... OTOH, our CAD people demand that
>>>>>>>>> chips look on the schematic like they do on the board - no functional
>>>>>>>>> partitioning (except BGAs, for some reason).
>>>>>>>> I insist on the same, I really hate netlist-style schematics where the
>>>>>>>> front axle is on page 17 which the left front wheel it on page 32.
>>>>>>> Of course not. All the wheels go on page-1 (with the tires/wheels/and nuts in
>>>>>>> the hierarchy on page 2-5) and the Engine goes on page 12, with the exhaust on
>>>>>>> page 88.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exceptions are logic gate and opamp multi-packs, of course.
>>>>>>> Gates and opamps are drawn symbolically but everything else is a single
>>>>>>> physical square box. UGH! It makes *really* ugly schematics. Impossible to
>>>>>>> follow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's in fact how most people want schematics. Including myself.
>>>>> Most? GOt a cite for that? None of the companies I've worked for wanted
>>>>> anything that ugly. It makes the schematic unreadable.
>>>>>
>>>> Most as in pretty much all my clients. I don't think there is any
>>>> opinion poll data for that available.
>>> Sorta my point, though if I'd shown up with a schematic like that, no one
>>> would have hired me. They want their documentation to describe how the widget
>>> works.
>>>
>> My schematics do describe how it works. Analog guys live that way.
>
> If there is a huge box on the page and nothing else, you are *not* describing
> how it works. It's no better than a netlist. Worse, actually, because you
> have to trace wires to find out which signals they're tied to.
>

I see that differently. There is a uC on that page and it shows all the
stuff that goes there. If I want to see the circuitry that makes
MODESYNC or whatever all it takes is to go to that pages. Either that's
written right next to it or one uses the find function.

>>>> I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
>>>> they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
>>>> but the uC or DSP is one big block.
>>> Nothing else fits on the page with the "big block". Might just as well have a
>>> netlist.
>>>
>> That's perfectly fine. There will be a net name saying, for example,
>> PULSECNT and the two letters uC underneath. Then everyone with enough
>> smarts will know that this goes to sheet 7 where the big fat uC lives.
>
> What it's hooked to is anyone's guess, though.
>

Nope, easy to find. I never have a problem with that.

>> It is not necessary and would be rather confusing to whack out timer #2
>> and then place it on sheet 2 where this net is. You'd be looking at
>> sheet 7 and ask your self "There's pins missing here. Where the heck did
>> all the timers go?".
>
> A hundred blocks, perhaps. A few, not so much. Separating all the power,
> grounds, and JTAG, for instance, cleans up the schematic a *lot*. Breaking out
> the memory controller (or two - separate pages) goes a long way to
> readability. Perhaps all the A/Ds on a block and timers on another. There are
> reasonable ways to divide things up functionally. It's much like the argument
> for hierarchy. One big box simply sucks.
>

A hierarchy makes that super-simple. The uC is one big block and resides
one notch above the analog stuff in the pecking order. So all you have
to do is go up one hierarchy level ato see where everything connects.

>>>>>>>> And I never
>>>>>>>> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>>>>>>> Nonsense. I did a bunch of MIL stuff (Naval weapons system) with 1k pin BGAs.
>>>>>> On alumina and other higher tech material, yes. On FR4 I simply will not
>>>>>> do it. If the client insists, ok, but then the result is their
>>>>>> responsibility.
>>>>> Nope. FR4. The is *no* problem. In fact, they're more reliable than other
>>>>> packages.
>>>> As you tend to say, I do not buy it.
>>> Of course you don't. It's a fact, though. BGAs are a far superior package.
>>> There are some problems with thick boards and fine-pitched BGAs but I try to
>>> stay at .8mm or above. .5mm can be done but it gets dicey with more than six
>>> layers or so. The boards get pretty thin, too (1mm and less).
>>>
>> The real fact is that whole small businesses have sprung up because of
>> all the BGA failures. Usually one-man shops. In our area their are
>> mobile, they often buy retired ambulances, put in a work bench, then
>> drive to the customers with the BGA problems.
>
> Nonsense. BGAs are often worth salvaging so sure there's a business in doing
> so. They are more difficult to replace so maybe there's a business there,
> too. They are *not* less reliable than QFPs. Just the opposite, in fact.
>

No. I spoke to a few of those guys, wanting to know how business is
going for them. Booming, they said. And none of them was salvaging any
BGA, they were all repairing boards with failed BGA connections.

Thinkpads created a sizeable part of their revenue stream.

>>>>> They do have to be done right, of course. ...
>>>> Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
>>>> employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
>>>> their laptops give up:
>>> Probably. Nothing would surprise me from the PC Co.
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM
>>> Sorry can't watch videos. My laptop will blow up. ;-)
>>>
>> It's an IBM T40 with BGA failure. Lots of other brands have the same issues.
>
> QFPs have never failed? I can tell you otherwise!
>

Anything with flexible leads in there generally fails less in harsh
environments because there is compliance in the links. This is why I am
using LFPAK FETs on the design I am working on right now. Because they
have real legs on one side and the unit can poptentially be dropped onto
concrete once in a while, as can just about anything.

<nitpick_mode>

I said "record qty of five cords of almond again". Big difference.

</nitpick_mode>

>> Lots of people in CA also have heat pumps but
>> that was a major mistake. Because the state government became hardcore
>> leftist so now they tax the dickens out of these poor folks, via reverse
>> tiers on the power bill. A meager baseline quantity costs around
>> 15c/kWh. With a heatpump or A/C you exceed that within days and then
>> prices quickly shoot up to something like 35c/kWh. I knew an old lady
>> who was very skinny, so needed it warm in the house in her 90's. She
>> paid north of $1000/month in winter. That's insane, I won't do that.
>
> Ouch. My heat pumps cost $.07/kWh(GA) and $.09(AL) during the heating season.
> My power bill approaches $200 (each place, if they were both running) during
> January and July. It's about half that in the off months so the heat portion
> of the bill is about $100 (maybe $120).

Make sure not to let too many lefties into state government. Else that
will change rather quickly.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

That's the way it should be done. If anything is electrically connected it
should be shown in the schematic. Mounting holes that aren't physically
connected to anything I really don't care too much about. There is no other
way to do LVS checking.

>In PADS, when you put a part on a board it imports it from the library
>and includes it in the current design files. If you go from, say, rev
>A to rev B on a schematic:pcb set, it does NOT refresh from the
>library unless you explicitly tell it to. So library changes don't
>break an existing, working design.

OrCAD does that, too. It carries all the parts along with the schematic. I
never thought I'd appreciate OrCAD!

>We have a few legacy parts with hidden VCC/ground pins (right-click to
>see what nets they connect to) but lately we show everything.

That's the right way to do it, IMO.

>>Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
>>thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
>>These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.
>
>We never delete a part from our database, but some parts are
>"retired." They are physically removed from the stock room, and either
>disposed of, or stashed elsewhere in case engineering might want to
>play with a few for some reason.

Nope. No way to "retire" them from the schematic database. Everything shows
up the same.

>>
>>Yes, it sucks.
>>
>
>It's shocking how sloppy some people are about stuff like this, about
>fully documenting things. But it's not a simple problem to handle
>revs, dash numbers, ECOs, BOMs, schematics, assembly drawings,
>manuals, test procedures, all that.

It's not sloppy, at all. Sloppy says that someone isn't doing their job. In
this case it's working as designed but severely broken (as designed). There
is nothing we can do about it, either. ...and I haven't even scratched the
surface of the idiocy, here.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Not how many, but their number ranges. BUSWR[0:11] would contain 12 lines
named BUSWR0, BUSWR1, ...,BUSWR11. A rather unusual thing? Do you support
busses within busses? Iv'e never seen that, either.

>>>>>> I often break FPGAs up by I/O bank, if I haven't got the design very far
>>>>>> along. If know how it's going to flow, I'll break it up that way. I can
>>>>>> still do that with BGAs, but not QFPs or QFNs. The CPoE has some really
>>>>>> strange ideas on how a schematic is to look. The CAD system sucks, too, but
>>>>>> that's a different topic. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ever dealt with Asian-style schematics? Oh, there is still some white on
>>>>> the page, let's cram the preamp in there. Then you start following a
>>>>> line clear across the page and it goes to ... ground!
>>>> I work for an Asian company. I think their schematics *suck*. No hierarchy,
>>>> even.
>>>>
>>> You have my sympathies :-)
>>
>> Their processed really are terrible (surprised me!). One particularly bad
>> point is grounds. If a connector has a shield connection, for instance,
>> that's not shown in the datasheet as a pin, it's not shown on the schematic.
>> The layout the layout person has to manually connect it to GND (or wherever).
>> It's up to the next layout guy to remember to do it, too. Worse, if I do
>> place a ground pin for it in the symbol library and someone else comes along
>> and uses that part, they'll remove the ground pin. *Poof*, mine is gone too.
>> No warning, nothing.
>>
>
>Yikes! That can quickly result in egg in the face, at the EMC lab.

Or worse. It could show up six months later, after the customer has already
sold a million.

>> Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
>> thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
>> These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.
>>
>
>If you look long enough you probably still find rectifier tubes,
>nuvistors and Leyden jars in there.

;-)

>> Yes, it sucks.
>>
>
>I bet it does. Now I am glad to be self-employed :-)

Wait until Obama is done with you.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

OTOH, if you want to know what resources in the micro are being used to drive
MODESYNC, you're screwed.

>>>>> I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
>>>>> they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
>>>>> but the uC or DSP is one big block.
>>>> Nothing else fits on the page with the "big block". Might just as well have a
>>>> netlist.
>>>>
>>> That's perfectly fine. There will be a net name saying, for example,
>>> PULSECNT and the two letters uC underneath. Then everyone with enough
>>> smarts will know that this goes to sheet 7 where the big fat uC lives.
>>
>> What it's hooked to is anyone's guess, though.
>>
>
>Nope, easy to find. I never have a problem with that.

How do you know what resource in the uC it's using? You have to trace it back
to the pin, through an ungodly rats nest.

>>> It is not necessary and would be rather confusing to whack out timer #2
>>> and then place it on sheet 2 where this net is. You'd be looking at
>>> sheet 7 and ask your self "There's pins missing here. Where the heck did
>>> all the timers go?".
>>
>> A hundred blocks, perhaps. A few, not so much. Separating all the power,
>> grounds, and JTAG, for instance, cleans up the schematic a *lot*. Breaking out
>> the memory controller (or two - separate pages) goes a long way to
>> readability. Perhaps all the A/Ds on a block and timers on another. There are
>> reasonable ways to divide things up functionally. It's much like the argument
>> for hierarchy. One big box simply sucks.
>>
>
>A hierarchy makes that super-simple. The uC is one big block and resides
>one notch above the analog stuff in the pecking order. So all you have
>to do is go up one hierarchy level ato see where everything connects.

I meant, taking the hierarchy meme to the chip level. The uC functions are
part of the hierarchy.

>>>>>>>>> And I never
>>>>>>>>> use large BGAs, those can spell doom in a hi-rel environment.
>>>>>>>> Nonsense. I did a bunch of MIL stuff (Naval weapons system) with 1k pin BGAs.
>>>>>>> On alumina and other higher tech material, yes. On FR4 I simply will not
>>>>>>> do it. If the client insists, ok, but then the result is their
>>>>>>> responsibility.
>>>>>> Nope. FR4. The is *no* problem. In fact, they're more reliable than other
>>>>>> packages.
>>>>> As you tend to say, I do not buy it.
>>>> Of course you don't. It's a fact, though. BGAs are a far superior package.
>>>> There are some problems with thick boards and fine-pitched BGAs but I try to
>>>> stay at .8mm or above. .5mm can be done but it gets dicey with more than six
>>>> layers or so. The boards get pretty thin, too (1mm and less).
>>>>
>>> The real fact is that whole small businesses have sprung up because of
>>> all the BGA failures. Usually one-man shops. In our area their are
>>> mobile, they often buy retired ambulances, put in a work bench, then
>>> drive to the customers with the BGA problems.
>>
>> Nonsense. BGAs are often worth salvaging so sure there's a business in doing
>> so. They are more difficult to replace so maybe there's a business there,
>> too. They are *not* less reliable than QFPs. Just the opposite, in fact.
>>
>
>No. I spoke to a few of those guys, wanting to know how business is
>going for them. Booming, they said. And none of them was salvaging any
>BGA, they were all repairing boards with failed BGA connections.

You must have some piss poor fab houses out there on the left coast. We've had
a couple failed BGAs (fumble fingers) but that's it. I have *far* more
problems with QFPs but they are easier to repair.

>Thinkpads created a sizeable part of their revenue stream.

I've had six ThinkPads. Problems, but no BGAs. This one was a fan. The
replacement, an organ replacement from my wife's old T60, didn't go so well
(heat issues and I buggered up the keyboard connector).

>>>>>> They do have to be done right, of course. ...
>>>>> Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
>>>>> employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
>>>>> their laptops give up:
>>>> Probably. Nothing would surprise me from the PC Co.
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM
>>>> Sorry can't watch videos. My laptop will blow up. ;-)
>>>>
>>> It's an IBM T40 with BGA failure. Lots of other brands have the same issues.
>>
>> QFPs have never failed? I can tell you otherwise!
>>
>
>Anything with flexible leads in there generally fails less in harsh
>environments because there is compliance in the links. This is why I am
>using LFPAK FETs on the design I am working on right now. Because they
>have real legs on one side and the unit can poptentially be dropped onto
>concrete once in a while, as can just about anything.

Your theory sounds plausible but it's not reality.

OK? So five cords is a record and it's not? I can't decode it.

>>> Lots of people in CA also have heat pumps but
>>> that was a major mistake. Because the state government became hardcore
>>> leftist so now they tax the dickens out of these poor folks, via reverse
>>> tiers on the power bill. A meager baseline quantity costs around
>>> 15c/kWh. With a heatpump or A/C you exceed that within days and then
>>> prices quickly shoot up to something like 35c/kWh. I knew an old lady
>>> who was very skinny, so needed it warm in the house in her 90's. She
>>> paid north of $1000/month in winter. That's insane, I won't do that.
>>
>> Ouch. My heat pumps cost $.07/kWh(GA) and $.09(AL) during the heating season.
>> My power bill approaches $200 (each place, if they were both running) during
>> January and July. It's about half that in the off months so the heat portion
>> of the bill is about $100 (maybe $120).
>
>
>Make sure not to let too many lefties into state government. Else that
>will change rather quickly.

No Democrats allowed. ;-) They (even Republicans can be tax and spenders)
wanted to raise sales tax a penny to pay for "roads". Of course under the
covers, 80% was going to mass transit and almost all of the other projects in
the list had already been committed. The referendum went down 3:1. Even in
the big city it went down 2:1.

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:44:56 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Oh, we can delete parts from the PADS library, and sometimes do. We
could, but don't, delete parts from our inventory database, which is a
different thing.

[Joerg]

That's probably because you've never designed an ultrasound beamformer :-)

Very normal thing there. For example, the bus CKL[0:31] contains 16
differential bus lines that go to 16 different locations, FIFOCLK[0:15]
contains 16 single-ended FIFO clocks.

>>>>>>> I often break FPGAs up by I/O bank, if I haven't got the design very far
>>>>>>> along. If know how it's going to flow, I'll break it up that way. I can
>>>>>>> still do that with BGAs, but not QFPs or QFNs. The CPoE has some really
>>>>>>> strange ideas on how a schematic is to look. The CAD system sucks, too, but
>>>>>>> that's a different topic. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever dealt with Asian-style schematics? Oh, there is still some white on
>>>>>> the page, let's cram the preamp in there. Then you start following a
>>>>>> line clear across the page and it goes to ... ground!
>>>>> I work for an Asian company. I think their schematics *suck*. No hierarchy,
>>>>> even.
>>>>>
>>>> You have my sympathies :-)
>>> Their processed really are terrible (surprised me!). One particularly bad
>>> point is grounds. If a connector has a shield connection, for instance,
>>> that's not shown in the datasheet as a pin, it's not shown on the schematic.
>>> The layout the layout person has to manually connect it to GND (or wherever).
>>> It's up to the next layout guy to remember to do it, too. Worse, if I do
>>> place a ground pin for it in the symbol library and someone else comes along
>>> and uses that part, they'll remove the ground pin. *Poof*, mine is gone too.
>>> No warning, nothing.
>>>
>> Yikes! That can quickly result in egg in the face, at the EMC lab.
>
> Or worse. It could show up six months later, after the customer has already
> sold a million.
>

... and one of their end users has plug it in somewhere and a building
caught fire ...

>>> Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
>>> thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
>>> These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.
>>>
>> If you look long enough you probably still find rectifier tubes,
>> nuvistors and Leyden jars in there.
>
> ;-)
>
>>> Yes, it sucks.
>>>
>> I bet it does. Now I am glad to be self-employed :-)
>
> Wait until Obama is done with you.

He may not have another chance anymore. At least the recent polls do not
look good for him.

Also, if it gets to be really bad folks like us can easily pick up
stakes and move to some tropical place. Where there is no winter.
Nowadays with Internet and Fedex it doesn't matter much where a
consultant's office is located.

[Joerg]

I don't need to know that from a schematic. At the beginning of a
project I stake my claims to timers, PWMs, interrupt-capable pins, ADC
channels and whatnot. That gets listed and goes right into my module
spec before a single brush stroke happens in the schematic. I strongly
believe in top-down design.

>>>>>> I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
>>>>>> they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
>>>>>> but the uC or DSP is one big block.
>>>>> Nothing else fits on the page with the "big block". Might just as well have a
>>>>> netlist.
>>>>>
>>>> That's perfectly fine. There will be a net name saying, for example,
>>>> PULSECNT and the two letters uC underneath. Then everyone with enough
>>>> smarts will know that this goes to sheet 7 where the big fat uC lives.
>>> What it's hooked to is anyone's guess, though.
>>>
>> Nope, easy to find. I never have a problem with that.
>
> How do you know what resource in the uC it's using? You have to trace it back
> to the pin, through an ungodly rats nest.
>

I just look it up in the module spec. One reason why I use a 27"
monitor. Sometimes I keep it open on the netbook to my left.

>>>> It is not necessary and would be rather confusing to whack out timer #2
>>>> and then place it on sheet 2 where this net is. You'd be looking at
>>>> sheet 7 and ask your self "There's pins missing here. Where the heck did
>>>> all the timers go?".
>>> A hundred blocks, perhaps. A few, not so much. Separating all the power,
>>> grounds, and JTAG, for instance, cleans up the schematic a *lot*. Breaking out
>>> the memory controller (or two - separate pages) goes a long way to
>>> readability. Perhaps all the A/Ds on a block and timers on another. There are
>>> reasonable ways to divide things up functionally. It's much like the argument
>>> for hierarchy. One big box simply sucks.
>>>
>> A hierarchy makes that super-simple. The uC is one big block and resides
>> one notch above the analog stuff in the pecking order. So all you have
>> to do is go up one hierarchy level ato see where everything connects.
>
> I meant, taking the hierarchy meme to the chip level. The uC functions are
> part of the hierarchy.
>

I'd never, ever do that except maybe for a big fat FPGA. That can go
into a hiearchy at different levels but not a uC.

I don't think many of the computing devices they do BGA fixes and
re-balling on where built here.

>> Thinkpads created a sizeable part of their revenue stream.
>
> I've had six ThinkPads. Problems, but no BGAs. This one was a fan. The
> replacement, an organ replacement from my wife's old T60, didn't go so well
> (heat issues and I buggered up the keyboard connector).
>

You were either lucky or very careful with them.

>>>>>>> They do have to be done right, of course. ...
>>>>>> Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
>>>>>> employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
>>>>>> their laptops give up:
>>>>> Probably. Nothing would surprise me from the PC Co.
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM
>>>>> Sorry can't watch videos. My laptop will blow up. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> It's an IBM T40 with BGA failure. Lots of other brands have the same issues.
>>> QFPs have never failed? I can tell you otherwise!
>>>
>> Anything with flexible leads in there generally fails less in harsh
>> environments because there is compliance in the links. This is why I am
>> using LFPAK FETs on the design I am working on right now. Because they
>> have real legs on one side and the unit can poptentially be dropped onto
>> concrete once in a while, as can just about anything.
>
> Your theory sounds plausible but it's not reality.
>

It is reality. It's been tested but I can't copy those docs because then
I'd get shot. The failures usually happen under two test conditions,
vibration and rapid temp-cycling.

Record qty seen over several years. We've needed five cords the last
three years. Before it was 3.5 to 4, before that 3, before that 2.
Global warming at its finest.

>>>> Lots of people in CA also have heat pumps but
>>>> that was a major mistake. Because the state government became hardcore
>>>> leftist so now they tax the dickens out of these poor folks, via reverse
>>>> tiers on the power bill. A meager baseline quantity costs around
>>>> 15c/kWh. With a heatpump or A/C you exceed that within days and then
>>>> prices quickly shoot up to something like 35c/kWh. I knew an old lady
>>>> who was very skinny, so needed it warm in the house in her 90's. She
>>>> paid north of $1000/month in winter. That's insane, I won't do that.
>>> Ouch. My heat pumps cost $.07/kWh(GA) and $.09(AL) during the heating season.
>>> My power bill approaches $200 (each place, if they were both running) during
>>> January and July. It's about half that in the off months so the heat portion
>>> of the bill is about $100 (maybe $120).
>>
>> Make sure not to let too many lefties into state government. Else that
>> will change rather quickly.
>
> No Democrats allowed. ;-) They (even Republicans can be tax and spenders)
> wanted to raise sales tax a penny to pay for "roads". Of course under the
> covers, 80% was going to mass transit and almost all of the other projects in
> the list had already been committed. The referendum went down 3:1. Even in
> the big city it went down 2:1.

Good! Wish it was the same here but people are repeatedly cajoled into
voting "for the children" or whetever, and then they are being fleeced.

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:22:33 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
[snip]

>>
>> Wait until Obama is done with you.
>
>
>He may not have another chance anymore. At least the recent polls do not
>look good for him.
>
>Also, if it gets to be really bad folks like us can easily pick up
>stakes and move to some tropical place. Where there is no winter.
>Nowadays with Internet and Fedex it doesn't matter much where a
>consultant's office is located.

My wife goes apoplectic every time I mention that survival mechanism,
saying, "What about the grandkids"? And I reply, "Why do you think
they make airplanes?" ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:11:58 -0700, John Larkin

Certainly it's a different thing. I'll bet it's marked so your purchasing
can't buy it, too. These components aren't marked in any way. They're
perfectly good parts, as far as the capture program is concerned.

Like I said, this is just a small part of the broken system. It's amazing
that anyone is worried about the Asians.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

TOTALLY different thing. In our case, thought, we'd name them FIFOCLK0+,
FIFOCLK0-, FIFOCLK1+, FIFOCLK1-.... Actually, I use a format like,
Source_Function_Type[N=Negative]. But you didn't answer my question.

>>>>>>>> I often break FPGAs up by I/O bank, if I haven't got the design very far
>>>>>>>> along. If know how it's going to flow, I'll break it up that way. I can
>>>>>>>> still do that with BGAs, but not QFPs or QFNs. The CPoE has some really
>>>>>>>> strange ideas on how a schematic is to look. The CAD system sucks, too, but
>>>>>>>> that's a different topic. ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever dealt with Asian-style schematics? Oh, there is still some white on
>>>>>>> the page, let's cram the preamp in there. Then you start following a
>>>>>>> line clear across the page and it goes to ... ground!
>>>>>> I work for an Asian company. I think their schematics *suck*. No hierarchy,
>>>>>> even.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have my sympathies :-)
>>>> Their processed really are terrible (surprised me!). One particularly bad
>>>> point is grounds. If a connector has a shield connection, for instance,
>>>> that's not shown in the datasheet as a pin, it's not shown on the schematic.
>>>> The layout the layout person has to manually connect it to GND (or wherever).
>>>> It's up to the next layout guy to remember to do it, too. Worse, if I do
>>>> place a ground pin for it in the symbol library and someone else comes along
>>>> and uses that part, they'll remove the ground pin. *Poof*, mine is gone too.
>>>> No warning, nothing.
>>>>
>>> Yikes! That can quickly result in egg in the face, at the EMC lab.
>>
>> Or worse. It could show up six months later, after the customer has already
>> sold a million.
>>
>
>... and one of their end users has plug it in somewhere and a building
>caught fire ...

Yep. Guess who's fault it is, too.

>>>> Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
>>>> thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
>>>> These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.
>>>>
>>> If you look long enough you probably still find rectifier tubes,
>>> nuvistors and Leyden jars in there.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>>> Yes, it sucks.
>>>>
>>> I bet it does. Now I am glad to be self-employed :-)
>>
>> Wait until Obama is done with you.
>
>
>He may not have another chance anymore. At least the recent polls do not
>look good for him.

Never underestimate the ignorati.

>Also, if it gets to be really bad folks like us can easily pick up
>stakes and move to some tropical place. Where there is no winter.
>Nowadays with Internet and Fedex it doesn't matter much where a
>consultant's office is located.

He'll tax you into oblivion before you can leave and lay claim to everything
you ever make. It's the leftist's way.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

You do, but what about the next guy? If you're conveying all information
outside the schematic, then there's no need for a schematic. Just use a
netlist.

>>>>>>> I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
>>>>>>> they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
>>>>>>> but the uC or DSP is one big block.
>>>>>> Nothing else fits on the page with the "big block". Might just as well have a
>>>>>> netlist.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's perfectly fine. There will be a net name saying, for example,
>>>>> PULSECNT and the two letters uC underneath. Then everyone with enough
>>>>> smarts will know that this goes to sheet 7 where the big fat uC lives.
>>>> What it's hooked to is anyone's guess, though.
>>>>
>>> Nope, easy to find. I never have a problem with that.
>>
>> How do you know what resource in the uC it's using? You have to trace it back
>> to the pin, through an ungodly rats nest.
>>
>
>I just look it up in the module spec. One reason why I use a 27"
>monitor. Sometimes I keep it open on the netbook to my left.

A rats nest is still a rats nest. A 27" monitor just makes it a bigger rats
nest.

>>>>> It is not necessary and would be rather confusing to whack out timer #2
>>>>> and then place it on sheet 2 where this net is. You'd be looking at
>>>>> sheet 7 and ask your self "There's pins missing here. Where the heck did
>>>>> all the timers go?".
>>>> A hundred blocks, perhaps. A few, not so much. Separating all the power,
>>>> grounds, and JTAG, for instance, cleans up the schematic a *lot*. Breaking out
>>>> the memory controller (or two - separate pages) goes a long way to
>>>> readability. Perhaps all the A/Ds on a block and timers on another. There are
>>>> reasonable ways to divide things up functionally. It's much like the argument
>>>> for hierarchy. One big box simply sucks.
>>>>
>>> A hierarchy makes that super-simple. The uC is one big block and resides
>>> one notch above the analog stuff in the pecking order. So all you have
>>> to do is go up one hierarchy level ato see where everything connects.
>>
>> I meant, taking the hierarchy meme to the chip level. The uC functions are
>> part of the hierarchy.
>>
>
>I'd never, ever do that except maybe for a big fat FPGA. That can go
>into a hiearchy at different levels but not a uC.

You're missing my point completely. A schematic should be broken up and
organized into useful parts. Hierarchy is just one tool. Another is to break
large chunks into smaller bites to help readability. Many uCs and DSPs are
big-fat devices. One almost fits on a D-sized print (and I print on ledger).

Whoever's doing it should be fired. It's easy stuff.

>>> Thinkpads created a sizeable part of their revenue stream.
>>
>> I've had six ThinkPads. Problems, but no BGAs. This one was a fan. The
>> replacement, an organ replacement from my wife's old T60, didn't go so well
>> (heat issues and I buggered up the keyboard connector).
>>
>
>You were either lucky or very careful with them.

I don't consider six in ten years either. Other things broke, though. Mostly
the displays. As I said, this one was the fan. BGAs certainly aren't the
weak link in a laptop.

>>>>>>>> They do have to be done right, of course. ...
>>>>>>> Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
>>>>>>> employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
>>>>>>> their laptops give up:
>>>>>> Probably. Nothing would surprise me from the PC Co.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM
>>>>>> Sorry can't watch videos. My laptop will blow up. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's an IBM T40 with BGA failure. Lots of other brands have the same issues.
>>>> QFPs have never failed? I can tell you otherwise!
>>>>
>>> Anything with flexible leads in there generally fails less in harsh
>>> environments because there is compliance in the links. This is why I am
>>> using LFPAK FETs on the design I am working on right now. Because they
>>> have real legs on one side and the unit can poptentially be dropped onto
>>> concrete once in a while, as can just about anything.
>>
>> Your theory sounds plausible but it's not reality.
>>
>
>It is reality. It's been tested but I can't copy those docs because then
>I'd get shot. The failures usually happen under two test conditions,
>vibration and rapid temp-cycling.

No, it certainly isn't. BGAs are *very* reliable. The military wouldn't be
using them otherwise. They don't do RoHS and that's a RPITA, but they have
*no* problems with BGAs. Automotive, another harsh long-life environment,
ditto.

Whatever...

>
>>>>> Lots of people in CA also have heat pumps but
>>>>> that was a major mistake. Because the state government became hardcore
>>>>> leftist so now they tax the dickens out of these poor folks, via reverse
>>>>> tiers on the power bill. A meager baseline quantity costs around
>>>>> 15c/kWh. With a heatpump or A/C you exceed that within days and then
>>>>> prices quickly shoot up to something like 35c/kWh. I knew an old lady
>>>>> who was very skinny, so needed it warm in the house in her 90's. She
>>>>> paid north of $1000/month in winter. That's insane, I won't do that.
>>>> Ouch. My heat pumps cost $.07/kWh(GA) and $.09(AL) during the heating season.
>>>> My power bill approaches $200 (each place, if they were both running) during
>>>> January and July. It's about half that in the off months so the heat portion
>>>> of the bill is about $100 (maybe $120).
>>>
>>> Make sure not to let too many lefties into state government. Else that
>>> will change rather quickly.
>>
>> No Democrats allowed. ;-) They (even Republicans can be tax and spenders)
>> wanted to raise sales tax a penny to pay for "roads". Of course under the
>> covers, 80% was going to mass transit and almost all of the other projects in
>> the list had already been committed. The referendum went down 3:1. Even in
>> the big city it went down 2:1.
>
>
>Good! Wish it was the same here but people are repeatedly cajoled into
>voting "for the children" or whetever, and then they are being fleeced.

At least the tax-and-spenders were embarrassed into putting it up for a
referendum.

[Joerg]

Strange, they all understood this kind of stuff even when they didn't
have the module spec at hand. Since about 25 year. It's also how my
clients always used to do it, and that's a lot of companies by now.

>>>>>>>> I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
>>>>>>>> they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
>>>>>>>> but the uC or DSP is one big block.
>>>>>>> Nothing else fits on the page with the "big block". Might just as well have a
>>>>>>> netlist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's perfectly fine. There will be a net name saying, for example,
>>>>>> PULSECNT and the two letters uC underneath. Then everyone with enough
>>>>>> smarts will know that this goes to sheet 7 where the big fat uC lives.
>>>>> What it's hooked to is anyone's guess, though.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope, easy to find. I never have a problem with that.
>>> How do you know what resource in the uC it's using? You have to trace it back
>>> to the pin, through an ungodly rats nest.
>>>
>> I just look it up in the module spec. One reason why I use a 27"
>> monitor. Sometimes I keep it open on the netbook to my left.
>
> A rats nest is still a rats nest. A 27" monitor just makes it a bigger rats
> nest.
>

Again, there is a schematic and a module spec. No ratsnest.

>>>>>> It is not necessary and would be rather confusing to whack out timer #2
>>>>>> and then place it on sheet 2 where this net is. You'd be looking at
>>>>>> sheet 7 and ask your self "There's pins missing here. Where the heck did
>>>>>> all the timers go?".
>>>>> A hundred blocks, perhaps. A few, not so much. Separating all the power,
>>>>> grounds, and JTAG, for instance, cleans up the schematic a *lot*. Breaking out
>>>>> the memory controller (or two - separate pages) goes a long way to
>>>>> readability. Perhaps all the A/Ds on a block and timers on another. There are
>>>>> reasonable ways to divide things up functionally. It's much like the argument
>>>>> for hierarchy. One big box simply sucks.
>>>>>
>>>> A hierarchy makes that super-simple. The uC is one big block and resides
>>>> one notch above the analog stuff in the pecking order. So all you have
>>>> to do is go up one hierarchy level ato see where everything connects.
>>> I meant, taking the hierarchy meme to the chip level. The uC functions are
>>> part of the hierarchy.
>>>
>> I'd never, ever do that except maybe for a big fat FPGA. That can go
>> into a hiearchy at different levels but not a uC.
>
> You're missing my point completely. A schematic should be broken up and
> organized into useful parts. Hierarchy is just one tool. Another is to break
> large chunks into smaller bites to help readability. Many uCs and DSPs are
> big-fat devices. One almost fits on a D-sized print (and I print on ledger).
>

Maybe you guys should use eyeglasses :-)

The 100PQFP I am using right now doesn't even fill 1/10th of a regular
letter A here. So how many pins do yours have? 3000?

Fact is, lots of field failures and quite a few smart people turned this
into new business opportunities.

[...]

>>>>>>>>> They do have to be done right, of course. ...
>>>>>>>> Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
>>>>>>>> employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
>>>>>>>> their laptops give up:
>>>>>>> Probably. Nothing would surprise me from the PC Co.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM
>>>>>>> Sorry can't watch videos. My laptop will blow up. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's an IBM T40 with BGA failure. Lots of other brands have the same issues.
>>>>> QFPs have never failed? I can tell you otherwise!
>>>>>
>>>> Anything with flexible leads in there generally fails less in harsh
>>>> environments because there is compliance in the links. This is why I am
>>>> using LFPAK FETs on the design I am working on right now. Because they
>>>> have real legs on one side and the unit can poptentially be dropped onto
>>>> concrete once in a while, as can just about anything.
>>> Your theory sounds plausible but it's not reality.
>>>
>> It is reality. It's been tested but I can't copy those docs because then
>> I'd get shot. The failures usually happen under two test conditions,
>> vibration and rapid temp-cycling.
>
> No, it certainly isn't. BGAs are *very* reliable. The military wouldn't be
> using them otherwise. They don't do RoHS and that's a RPITA, but they have
> *no* problems with BGAs. Automotive, another harsh long-life environment,
> ditto.
>

Don't get me started on automotive electronics ...

[...]

>>>>>> Lots of people in CA also have heat pumps but
>>>>>> that was a major mistake. Because the state government became hardcore
>>>>>> leftist so now they tax the dickens out of these poor folks, via reverse
>>>>>> tiers on the power bill. A meager baseline quantity costs around
>>>>>> 15c/kWh. With a heatpump or A/C you exceed that within days and then
>>>>>> prices quickly shoot up to something like 35c/kWh. I knew an old lady
>>>>>> who was very skinny, so needed it warm in the house in her 90's. She
>>>>>> paid north of $1000/month in winter. That's insane, I won't do that.
>>>>> Ouch. My heat pumps cost $.07/kWh(GA) and $.09(AL) during the heating season.
>>>>> My power bill approaches $200 (each place, if they were both running) during
>>>>> January and July. It's about half that in the off months so the heat portion
>>>>> of the bill is about $100 (maybe $120).
>>>> Make sure not to let too many lefties into state government. Else that
>>>> will change rather quickly.
>>> No Democrats allowed. ;-) They (even Republicans can be tax and spenders)
>>> wanted to raise sales tax a penny to pay for "roads". Of course under the
>>> covers, 80% was going to mass transit and almost all of the other projects in
>>> the list had already been committed. The referendum went down 3:1. Even in
>>> the big city it went down 2:1.
>>
>> Good! Wish it was the same here but people are repeatedly cajoled into
>> voting "for the children" or whetever, and then they are being fleeced.
>
> At least the tax-and-spenders were embarrassed into putting it up for a
> referendum.
>

Now the dems have resorted to calling taxes "fees", in order to get
around the 2/3 majority requirement.

[Joerg]

Then it's not clear to me what you mean. In ultrasound naming them like
you suggest is not practical, there are simply way to many channels. So
we name them like I wrote.

Whoever some trial lawyer pounds into settling.

>>>>> Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
>>>>> thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
>>>>> These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.
>>>>>
>>>> If you look long enough you probably still find rectifier tubes,
>>>> nuvistors and Leyden jars in there.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>>> Yes, it sucks.
>>>>>
>>>> I bet it does. Now I am glad to be self-employed :-)
>>> Wait until Obama is done with you.
>>
>> He may not have another chance anymore. At least the recent polls do not
>> look good for him.
>
> Never underestimate the ignorati.
>

Yeah :-(

>> Also, if it gets to be really bad folks like us can easily pick up
>> stakes and move to some tropical place. Where there is no winter.
>> Nowadays with Internet and Fedex it doesn't matter much where a
>> consultant's office is located.
>
> He'll tax you into oblivion before you can leave and lay claim to everything
> you ever make. It's the leftist's way.

Let's see what Nov-6 brings. Maybe people do wake up.

[Joerg]

Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:22:33 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Wait until Obama is done with you.
>>
>> He may not have another chance anymore. At least the recent polls do not
>> look good for him.
>>
>> Also, if it gets to be really bad folks like us can easily pick up
>> stakes and move to some tropical place. Where there is no winter.
>> Nowadays with Internet and Fedex it doesn't matter much where a
>> consultant's office is located.
>
> My wife goes apoplectic every time I mention that survival mechanism,
> saying, "What about the grandkids"? And I reply, "Why do you think
> they make airplanes?" ;-)
>

Same here. Plus learning yet another language isn't too appealing
either. Eventually you'll have to speak Patois or at least the usual
Spanish-French mix, otherwise you'll never be one of them.

There is a downside for me though. For EMC jobs on bigger equipment I
often have to be on site and that's a challenge depending on location.
Well, as long as a Fedex freighter gets there once a week. Some of the
passenger flights I've seen there would scare the heck out of my wife. I
remember an American pilot standing next to me watching an old
twin-radial lumbering in. Pounding rain, lightning, fierce sidewind, the
occasional flame shooting out of the exhausts. "This dude is nuts!"

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:28:05 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

I love DC3's. They belch flame, but somehow fly at nearly zero
air-speed while landing ;-)

[Joerg]

The old ones had flaming take-offs a lot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dExlu488bM4

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:39:20 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>

That's a Lockheed L1049. I actually did some stuff for the L1011.

My first flight on a DC3 scared me s...less. I wasn't used to seeing
glowing engine blocks :-(

[Joerg]

Sometimes it goes wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXOmlkEpNvg

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

I don't even know if we can name signals in bundles with a range, but we *can*
have totally different names within a single bus. CLK, and DATA1, DATA2,
DATA3,... ,DATA1001, WRITE, READ, ENABLE, +5V, GND can all be in the same bus.
In fact, I'm not sure what busses accomplish other than showing up on the
schematic as one line. The good side is that we don't have to use stupid
naming conventions like having evens be the '+' and odds the '-' of
differential signals. The sign can be part of the element name. Any signal
can be part of a bus. The down side is that it doesn't matter what the bus
does, everything is connected by name. It's worse than OrCAD but it's pretty
bad this way, too.

The boss is going to point at the engineer. Shoulda checked that! Grrr.

>>>>>> Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
>>>>>> thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
>>>>>> These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you look long enough you probably still find rectifier tubes,
>>>>> nuvistors and Leyden jars in there.
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it sucks.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I bet it does. Now I am glad to be self-employed :-)
>>>> Wait until Obama is done with you.
>>>
>>> He may not have another chance anymore. At least the recent polls do not
>>> look good for him.
>>
>> Never underestimate the ignorati.
>>
>
>Yeah :-(
>
>
>>> Also, if it gets to be really bad folks like us can easily pick up
>>> stakes and move to some tropical place. Where there is no winter.
>>> Nowadays with Internet and Fedex it doesn't matter much where a
>>> consultant's office is located.
>>
>> He'll tax you into oblivion before you can leave and lay claim to everything
>> you ever make. It's the leftist's way.
>
>
>Let's see what Nov-6 brings. Maybe people do wake up.

I sure hope so. It's all over otherwise. I'd like to work another ten years
but that's not likely to happen if Obummer has his way.

[Joerg]

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:11:58 -0700, John Larkin
> <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:44:56 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:38:45 -0700, John Larkin
>>> <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:46:33 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>> <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>

[...]

>>>>> Oh, and there is no way to obsolete a component from the database. We have
>>>>> thousands of capacitors to go through that the manufacturer no longer makes.
>>>>> These have to be scrubbed every time we put a BOM together.
>>>> We never delete a part from our database, but some parts are
>>>> "retired." They are physically removed from the stock room, and either
>>>> disposed of, or stashed elsewhere in case engineering might want to
>>>> play with a few for some reason.
>>> Nope. No way to "retire" them from the schematic database. Everything shows
>>> up the same.
>> Oh, we can delete parts from the PADS library, and sometimes do. We
>> could, but don't, delete parts from our inventory database, which is a
>> different thing.
>
> Certainly it's a different thing. I'll bet it's marked so your purchasing
> can't buy it, too. These components aren't marked in any way. They're
> perfectly good parts, as far as the capture program is concerned.
>
> Like I said, this is just a small part of the broken system. It's amazing
> that anyone is worried about the Asians.

That's what people in Detroit said about 40 years ago. Later this turned
to "Oh s..t!" but it was too late and their companies fell apart. We had
to bail them out because of that major mistake.

The same happened to Radio/TV manufacturers, VCR manufacturers, LCD
manufacturers and so on, except their companies croaked and nobody
bailed them out. Some of this was clearly avoidable.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

25 years ago not many had 1000 pin modules (and those of us who did, certainly
split the blocks into organized parts. You already admit that you split up
gates and opamps. UCs are just as important.

>>>>>>>>> I don't know what's ugly about it. Look at the schematics on the web,
>>>>>>>>> they usually have opamps split out, same for 74HC14 inverters and such,
>>>>>>>>> but the uC or DSP is one big block.
>>>>>>>> Nothing else fits on the page with the "big block". Might just as well have a
>>>>>>>> netlist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's perfectly fine. There will be a net name saying, for example,
>>>>>>> PULSECNT and the two letters uC underneath. Then everyone with enough
>>>>>>> smarts will know that this goes to sheet 7 where the big fat uC lives.
>>>>>> What it's hooked to is anyone's guess, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, easy to find. I never have a problem with that.
>>>> How do you know what resource in the uC it's using? You have to trace it back
>>>> to the pin, through an ungodly rats nest.
>>>>
>>> I just look it up in the module spec. One reason why I use a 27"
>>> monitor. Sometimes I keep it open on the netbook to my left.
>>
>> A rats nest is still a rats nest. A 27" monitor just makes it a bigger rats
>> nest.
>>
>
>Again, there is a schematic and a module spec. No ratsnest.

You have one block with hundreds of connections with random pins and power
connections (capacitors shown locally). When you wire all this together into
a system it *is* a rats nest. It can't be helped. Splitting the block into
smaller, functional, pieces alleviates this a *lot*. The memory bus can be on
a separate page with its 64 address and 64 data pins organized, in order. Few
will ever have to look at it and it won't mess up the more important signals.

>>>>>>> It is not necessary and would be rather confusing to whack out timer #2
>>>>>>> and then place it on sheet 2 where this net is. You'd be looking at
>>>>>>> sheet 7 and ask your self "There's pins missing here. Where the heck did
>>>>>>> all the timers go?".
>>>>>> A hundred blocks, perhaps. A few, not so much. Separating all the power,
>>>>>> grounds, and JTAG, for instance, cleans up the schematic a *lot*. Breaking out
>>>>>> the memory controller (or two - separate pages) goes a long way to
>>>>>> readability. Perhaps all the A/Ds on a block and timers on another. There are
>>>>>> reasonable ways to divide things up functionally. It's much like the argument
>>>>>> for hierarchy. One big box simply sucks.
>>>>>>
>>>>> A hierarchy makes that super-simple. The uC is one big block and resides
>>>>> one notch above the analog stuff in the pecking order. So all you have
>>>>> to do is go up one hierarchy level ato see where everything connects.
>>>> I meant, taking the hierarchy meme to the chip level. The uC functions are
>>>> part of the hierarchy.
>>>>
>>> I'd never, ever do that except maybe for a big fat FPGA. That can go
>>> into a hiearchy at different levels but not a uC.
>>
>> You're missing my point completely. A schematic should be broken up and
>> organized into useful parts. Hierarchy is just one tool. Another is to break
>> large chunks into smaller bites to help readability. Many uCs and DSPs are
>> big-fat devices. One almost fits on a D-sized print (and I print on ledger).
>>
>
>Maybe you guys should use eyeglasses :-)

Good grief. Actually, I do have a problem tracking lines across a page. I'm
always swapping pins. I just can't see the swap unless I already know it's
there.

>The 100PQFP I am using right now doesn't even fill 1/10th of a regular
>letter A here. So how many pins do yours have? 3000?

No wonder you still use such poor practices. You think 100 is big. I have at
least ten parts on a schematic larger than that. The DSPs are >300 pins (one
500 and one >700). We also have several QFP144s. It's not *so* bad with the
dinky 38pin flat-packs but it's still a mess trying to squeeze in terminations
and capacitors next to the pins, since they're not pinned out logically.

Evidently there are a lot of idiots. It's done in the highest reliability
industries.

>[...]
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> They do have to be done right, of course. ...
>>>>>>>>> Does this mean lots of laptop manufacturers including your former
>>>>>>>>> employer do it wrong? This is how it looks when BGA solder joints on
>>>>>>>>> their laptops give up:
>>>>>>>> Probably. Nothing would surprise me from the PC Co.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpx4Rx4nVlM
>>>>>>>> Sorry can't watch videos. My laptop will blow up. ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's an IBM T40 with BGA failure. Lots of other brands have the same issues.
>>>>>> QFPs have never failed? I can tell you otherwise!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Anything with flexible leads in there generally fails less in harsh
>>>>> environments because there is compliance in the links. This is why I am
>>>>> using LFPAK FETs on the design I am working on right now. Because they
>>>>> have real legs on one side and the unit can poptentially be dropped onto
>>>>> concrete once in a while, as can just about anything.
>>>> Your theory sounds plausible but it's not reality.
>>>>
>>> It is reality. It's been tested but I can't copy those docs because then
>>> I'd get shot. The failures usually happen under two test conditions,
>>> vibration and rapid temp-cycling.
>>
>> No, it certainly isn't. BGAs are *very* reliable. The military wouldn't be
>> using them otherwise. They don't do RoHS and that's a RPITA, but they have
>> *no* problems with BGAs. Automotive, another harsh long-life environment,
>> ditto.
>>
>
>Don't get me started on automotive electronics ...

Oh, well. BGAs *are* reliable.

Sure. That was easily predicted. Traffic tickets were an early "revenue
enhancement" technique. Red-light cams make it much cheaper to collect.
Rampant big-brotherism. No thanks. You can keep Californica.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

It's exactly the opposite. *THEIR* processes *suck*.

>The same happened to Radio/TV manufacturers, VCR manufacturers, LCD
>manufacturers and so on, except their companies croaked and nobody
>bailed them out. Some of this was clearly avoidable.

...and look where Japan is now.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Oct 10, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> > On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:39:23 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

> >> I sure hope so. However, since I do not trust that we bought the record
> >> qty of five cords of almond again for this year. Blew through the
> >> complete stack the last two seasons already, literally done to the last
> >> sticks. In 2000 I thought that was impossible, back then two cords was fine.
>
> > I thought you bought five cords last year?  I've got two houses with heat
> > pumps now.  No more wood stoves for me (we do have a gas fireplace in the old
> > house and I'll probably put gas logs in this one).
>
> That's why I wrote "again". We bought five cords also last year, and

> blew through all of that. Lots of people in CA also have heat pumps but

> that was a major mistake. Because the state government became hardcore
> leftist so now they tax the dickens out of these poor folks, via reverse
> tiers on the power bill. A meager baseline quantity costs around
> 15c/kWh. With a heatpump or A/C you exceed that within days and then
> prices quickly shoot up to something like 35c/kWh. I knew an old lady
> who was very skinny, so needed it warm in the house in her 90's. She
> paid north of $1000/month in winter. That's insane, I won't do that.

That's avocados and nuts. Power's $.10/kWHr in my neck of the woods,
for now anyhow, no limit. (from coal). Maybe we'll switch to solar
after the Barackolypse, in which case I'll be burning wood.

I don't use much, only about $20 base, and an extra $25 or so a month
in winter, the time of year my house gets and stays cold.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Michael A. Terrell]

"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

>
> Joerg wrote:
> >
> >That's what people in Detroit said about 40 years ago. Later this turned
> >to "Oh s..t!" but it was too late and their companies fell apart. We had
> >to bail them out because of that major mistake.
>
> It's exactly the opposite. *THEIR* processes *suck*.
>
> >The same happened to Radio/TV manufacturers, VCR manufacturers, LCD
> >manufacturers and so on, except their companies croaked and nobody
> >bailed them out. Some of this was clearly avoidable.
>
> ...and look where Japan is now.

What VCRs were built in the US, other than the failed Cartivision?

[Joerg]

Huh? Whose and what processes?

>> The same happened to Radio/TV manufacturers, VCR manufacturers, LCD
>> manufacturers and so on, except their companies croaked and nobody
>> bailed them out. Some of this was clearly avoidable.
>
> ...and look where Japan is now.

Japan does not have China as their money source, for obvious reasons.
The companies there are doing rather well. There is a reason why so many
people drive Toyotas.

[Joerg]

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:52:53 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:34:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:24:05 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:43:18 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[...]

>> The 100PQFP I am using right now doesn't even fill 1/10th of a regular
>> letter A here. So how many pins do yours have? 3000?
>
> No wonder you still use such poor practices. You think 100 is big. I have at
> least ten parts on a schematic larger than that. The DSPs are >300 pins (one
> 500 and one >700). We also have several QFP144s. It's not *so* bad with the
> dinky 38pin flat-packs but it's still a mess trying to squeeze in terminations
> and capacitors next to the pins, since they're not pinned out logically.
>

I have no problems with that, and neither do any of my clients.

[...]

>>>> I don't think many of the computing devices they do BGA fixes and
>>>> re-balling on where built here.
>>> Whoever's doing it should be fired. It's easy stuff.
>>>
>> Fact is, lots of field failures and quite a few smart people turned this
>> into new business opportunities.
>
> Evidently there are a lot of idiots. It's done in the highest reliability
> industries.
>

I brought you an example from your former employer and that is a darn
good company when it comes to quality. Yet they had BGA problems galore.
I could have told them.

Your choice. I am of a very different opinion.

[...]

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Japanese. From what I see, the Chinese are even worse.

>>> The same happened to Radio/TV manufacturers, VCR manufacturers, LCD
>>> manufacturers and so on, except their companies croaked and nobody
>>> bailed them out. Some of this was clearly avoidable.
>>
>> ...and look where Japan is now.
>
>
>Japan does not have China as their money source, for obvious reasons.

Good grief, twenty years ago the bogeyman was Japan. Before that SA.

>The companies there are doing rather well. There is a reason why so many
>people drive Toyotas.

...built, now designed, in the US. THe difference is unions, not so much
processed.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:18:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:52:53 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:34:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:24:05 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:43:18 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>
>
>>> The 100PQFP I am using right now doesn't even fill 1/10th of a regular
>>> letter A here. So how many pins do yours have? 3000?
>>
>> No wonder you still use such poor practices. You think 100 is big. I have at
>> least ten parts on a schematic larger than that. The DSPs are >300 pins (one
>> 500 and one >700). We also have several QFP144s. It's not *so* bad with the
>> dinky 38pin flat-packs but it's still a mess trying to squeeze in terminations
>> and capacitors next to the pins, since they're not pinned out logically.
>>
>
>I have no problems with that, and neither do any of my clients.

Your stuff is tiny. ...and you don't care if it's a mess. ;-)

>
>
>>>>> I don't think many of the computing devices they do BGA fixes and
>>>>> re-balling on where built here.
>>>> Whoever's doing it should be fired. It's easy stuff.
>>>>
>>> Fact is, lots of field failures and quite a few smart people turned this
>>> into new business opportunities.
>>
>> Evidently there are a lot of idiots. It's done in the highest reliability
>> industries.
>>
>
>I brought you an example from your former employer and that is a darn
>good company when it comes to quality. Yet they had BGA problems galore.
>I could have told them.

My PPoE hasn't done that sort of work in several decades. THey were quite
good at it, though.

You're welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts.

[Joerg]

Maybe you should take the engineer's tour through a company such as
Mitsubishi. That can be an eye-popper.

There is a reason why my car from that company has not had one defect
from day one, over 16 years now. Not even a dome light bulb has dared to
burn out.

>>>> The same happened to Radio/TV manufacturers, VCR manufacturers, LCD
>>>> manufacturers and so on, except their companies croaked and nobody
>>>> bailed them out. Some of this was clearly avoidable.
>>> ...and look where Japan is now.
>>
>> Japan does not have China as their money source, for obvious reasons.
>
> Good grief, twenty years ago the bogeyman was Japan. Before that SA.
>

SA?

According to guys in Detroit their bogeyman _is_ still Japan. Well, plus
South Korea now.

>> The companies there are doing rather well. There is a reason why so many
>> people drive Toyotas.
>
> ...built, now designed, in the US. THe difference is unions, not so much
> processed.

My car was designed and built in Nagoya. That's not in the US.

[Joerg]

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:18:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:52:53 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:34:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:24:05 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:43:18 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The 100PQFP I am using right now doesn't even fill 1/10th of a regular
>>>> letter A here. So how many pins do yours have? 3000?
>>> No wonder you still use such poor practices. You think 100 is big. I have at
>>> least ten parts on a schematic larger than that. The DSPs are >300 pins (one
>>> 500 and one >700). We also have several QFP144s. It's not *so* bad with the
>>> dinky 38pin flat-packs but it's still a mess trying to squeeze in terminations
>>> and capacitors next to the pins, since they're not pinned out logically.
>>>
>> I have no problems with that, and neither do any of my clients.
>
> Your stuff is tiny. ...and you don't care if it's a mess. ;-)
>

Clearly you have not seen the schematics of a 128-channel ultrasound
machine.

I know the facts, and they show that BGAs cause reliability issues.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Manufacturing, not engineering control.

>There is a reason why my car from that company has not had one defect
>from day one, over 16 years now. Not even a dome light bulb has dared to
>burn out.

Good grief. Anecdote <> evidence.

>>>>> The same happened to Radio/TV manufacturers, VCR manufacturers, LCD
>>>>> manufacturers and so on, except their companies croaked and nobody
>>>>> bailed them out. Some of this was clearly avoidable.
>>>> ...and look where Japan is now.
>>>
>>> Japan does not have China as their money source, for obvious reasons.
>>
>> Good grief, twenty years ago the bogeyman was Japan. Before that SA.
>>
>
>SA?

Saudi Arabia.

>According to guys in Detroit their bogeyman _is_ still Japan. Well, plus
>South Korea now.

Except that the cars are built *here*. For at least the last 20 years,
Detroit's problems have been production more than engineering. Detroit's real
bogeyman is *UNIONS*, something neither Japan or Korea (or their US entities)
has any worry about.

>>> The companies there are doing rather well. There is a reason why so many
>>> people drive Toyotas.
>>
>> ...built, now designed, in the US. THe difference is unions, not so much
>> processed.
>
>
>My car was designed and built in Nagoya. That's not in the US.

Last century, perhaps.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:53:59 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:18:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:52:53 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:34:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:24:05 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:43:18 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The 100PQFP I am using right now doesn't even fill 1/10th of a regular
>>>>> letter A here. So how many pins do yours have? 3000?
>>>> No wonder you still use such poor practices. You think 100 is big. I have at
>>>> least ten parts on a schematic larger than that. The DSPs are >300 pins (one
>>>> 500 and one >700). We also have several QFP144s. It's not *so* bad with the
>>>> dinky 38pin flat-packs but it's still a mess trying to squeeze in terminations
>>>> and capacitors next to the pins, since they're not pinned out logically.
>>>>
>>> I have no problems with that, and neither do any of my clients.
>>
>> Your stuff is tiny. ...and you don't care if it's a mess. ;-)
>>
>
>Clearly you have not seen the schematics of a 128-channel ultrasound
>machine.

You think a 100 pin QFN is big. QED. OTOH, mainframes *are* big.

Bullshit. BGAs are *very* reliable. They wouldn't be in military equipment if
they were anywhere near as bad as you dream.

[Joerg]

It's both. Good engineering control and good manufacturing go hand in
hand. For technical goods one cannot really exist without the other.

>> There is a reason why my car from that company has not had one defect
>>from day one, over 16 years now. Not even a dome light bulb has dared to
>> burn out.
>
> Good grief. Anecdote <> evidence.
>

Obviously you do not read Consumer Reports. I do, and most deinitely
before making a big purcahsing decision like buying a car.

>>>>>> The same happened to Radio/TV manufacturers, VCR manufacturers, LCD
>>>>>> manufacturers and so on, except their companies croaked and nobody
>>>>>> bailed them out. Some of this was clearly avoidable.
>>>>> ...and look where Japan is now.
>>>> Japan does not have China as their money source, for obvious reasons.
>>> Good grief, twenty years ago the bogeyman was Japan. Before that SA.
>>>
>> SA?
>
> Saudi Arabia.
>
>> According to guys in Detroit their bogeyman _is_ still Japan. Well, plus
>> South Korea now.
>
> Except that the cars are built *here*. For at least the last 20 years,
> Detroit's problems have been production more than engineering. Detroit's real
> bogeyman is *UNIONS*, something neither Japan or Korea (or their US entities)
> has any worry about.
>

Sure, because every time the unions made a demand the big three rolled
over and played dead. Nonsense such as jobs banks.

>>>> The companies there are doing rather well. There is a reason why so many
>>>> people drive Toyotas.
>>> ...built, now designed, in the US. THe difference is unions, not so much
>>> processed.
>>
>> My car was designed and built in Nagoya. That's not in the US.
>
> Last century, perhaps.

Nope, still built in Nagoya.

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:25:12 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>

wrote:

>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:51:33 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>

[snip]

>
>
>>> There is a reason why my car from that company has not had one defect
>>>from day one, over 16 years now. Not even a dome light bulb has dared to
>>> burn out.
>>
>> Good grief. Anecdote <> evidence.
>>
>
>Obviously you do not read Consumer Reports. I do, and most deinitely
>before making a big purcahsing decision like buying a car.
>

[snip]

Consumer's Union supported Obamacare. As a result I cut off not only
my subscription to Consumer Reports (the magazine) but stopped my
charitable contributions to Consumer's Union.

[Joerg]

Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:25:12 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:51:33 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
> [snip]
>>
>>>> There is a reason why my car from that company has not had one defect
>>> >from day one, over 16 years now. Not even a dome light bulb has dared to
>>>> burn out.
>>> Good grief. Anecdote <> evidence.
>>>
>> Obviously you do not read Consumer Reports. I do, and most deinitely
>> before making a big purcahsing decision like buying a car.
>>
> [snip]
>
> Consumer's Union supported Obamacare. As a result I cut off not only
> my subscription to Consumer Reports (the magazine) but stopped my
> charitable contributions to Consumer's Union.
>

Ok, that was one of many examples. There are statistics the AAA runs,
there's Edmunds, and on and on. It does not take much to figure which
brands are at the top. And wishful thinking isn't going to help in that
domain, only cold hard facts count.

I guess there is a reason why you are driving a Nissan and an Infinity.

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-10-08, spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If someone has a free moment, I'd like to know:
>
> I'm on my third laptop right now. Every time I plugged my Dell's "fat
> snake" into the wall, I drew quite an arc. The Lenovo's arc was not
> noticeable, but now I get a noticeable arc with my new HP -- not as
> big as the Dell's, however.
>
> I know FA about switch mode power supplies, obviously, so I wonder
>
> 1. What produces the arc?

Electric current, "inrush current" is the normal name for a high
current that occusr when a device is connected its supply.

> 2. Why would different power supplies produce different arcs (does it
> just depend on output power capability)?

It depends more in the internal design of the powersupply, and the
condition of the contacts.

> 3. Why is there no arc when I pull the plug from the outlet?

the input stage of the powersupply is mostly capacitative
it reacts stronly to a sudden change in voltage, but weakly to a
change in current

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---