Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: brent on 30 Mar 2010 21:58 On Mar 30, 8:58 pm, BigBalls <BiggestBallsOf...(a)thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT), brent > > <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: > > My experience is the fist pass gets everyone to know what > >it is they are building. > > Lack of engineering prowess and experience. > > It will come, if you strive toward it. If you stifle it, it will not. I hope you work for my competition, because my products will ultimately make it to market faster and be far more reliable in the field and easier to produce.
From: BigBalls on 30 Mar 2010 22:06 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:58:33 -0700 (PDT), brent <bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Mar 30, 8:58�pm, BigBalls ><BiggestBallsOf...(a)thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT), brent >> >> <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: >> > �My experience is the fist pass gets everyone to know what >> >it is they are building. >> >> � Lack of engineering prowess and experience. >> >> �It will come, if you strive toward it. �If you stifle it, it will not. > >I hope you work for my competition, You do not compete in my market. Sorry. > because my products will >ultimately make it to market faster and be far more reliable in the >field and easier to produce. My products are mission critical and NEVER fail, and if they do, the redundant unit kicks in, and it gets swapped out afterward for fresh systems. The commercial line is always "up" as well. After all, communications has to just work. Shame that you do not know that until your third iteration. Some of ours require an additional pass, but your previous remarks were and are still a bit ludicrous.
From: brent on 30 Mar 2010 22:16 On Mar 30, 10:06 pm, BigBalls <BiggestBallsOf...(a)thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:58:33 -0700 (PDT), brent > > <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: > >On Mar 30, 8:58 pm, BigBalls > ><BiggestBallsOf...(a)thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT), brent > > >> <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: > >> > My experience is the fist pass gets everyone to know what > >> >it is they are building. > > >> Lack of engineering prowess and experience. > > >> It will come, if you strive toward it. If you stifle it, it will not. > > >I hope you work for my competition, > > You do not compete in my market. Sorry. > > > because my products will > >ultimately make it to market faster and be far more reliable in the > >field and easier to produce. > > My products are mission critical and NEVER fail, and if they do, the > redundant unit kicks in, and it gets swapped out afterward for fresh > systems. > > The commercial line is always "up" as well. After all, communications > has to just work. > > Shame that you do not know that until your third iteration. Some of > ours require an additional pass, but your previous remarks were and are > still a bit ludicrous. I do not think it is ludicrous to stress to management that three passes is required when designing a new product (RF + analog + display + 30,000 lines of new code + self contained mechanicals) that the company does not have core competency in. If you are talking about a significant upgrade to an existing product, two passes is good and if you are talking about replacing an obsolete part, then sure, one pass will probably get it done. I have seen a tremendous amount of waste and schedule slippage when the company insists on a one pass design when the there is no hope of modeling everything up front because the team does not yet know what it does not know. These designs are ultimately the only real designs worth talking about. The designs that can be done in one pass are rehashes of what already has been done.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 30 Mar 2010 22:28 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:16:05 -0700 (PDT), brent <bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: > that the >company does not have core competency in. Nice piece of dancing there.
From: BigBalls on 30 Mar 2010 22:38
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:16:05 -0700 (PDT), brent <bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: > I have seen a tremendous amount of waste >and schedule slippage when the company insists on a one pass design >when the there is no hope of modeling everything up front because the >team does not yet know what it does not know. That would depend on the time to market (or to proto) numbers and the complexity of the design. If there is a lot of time, the thing can be run ready on the first shot sent to the fab house because a good team will have caught everything after doing them for decades. Nearly every time. Of course, those previously mentioned 'core competencies' do have to be in place as well, and there is no competency gained like that of raw experience. One designs the first one with the thought that it will be the only pass needed, and you strive to attain the capacity to get to that goal with each and every design. That is attainable, and done, across the frequency spectrum and data rate spectrum. Granted, place ten assemblies in a fresh design and at least one of them will have a grounding flaw or something that can be fixed in the lab for the proto run, which would be a short piece count run anyway. There would only be one artwork sent for any large piece run. The proto would (and should) expose any flaws. But then again, one doesn't do full spectrum test regimens on the prototype in every case either, so failures can (and do) occur. I just don't think a three cycle routine is needed. I guess budgeting with that need in mind stops any problems should three cycles actually be needed. Whatever. |