Ferrite Inductor Tolerance
in [Design]
|
From: Archimedes' Lever on 13 Jun 2010 17:50 On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:43:31 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:08:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:24:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Oh, and how do you suppose you get an "original design" into production >>>>> without an ECO? >>>> >>>> You must also be an acronymical retard as well. >>>> >>>> There is a difference between a design release and a change order of an >>>> existing design. >>>> >>> So you guys release new designs without due ECO process? I sure hope you >>> don't design anything that can harm people. >> >> AlwaysWrong doesn't design anything, so no he doesn't release ECOs. Everyone >> else here who does, uses an ECO process, certainly. > > >Yup. > >Maybe they have a different release process for new stuff even though it >typically _changes_ a product from previous to next generation. Having >two different release processes doesn't strike me as particularly smart, >but who knows :-) ECO is NOT for a "release", and not all releases are next gen designs of previous work, idiot. Two proofs that you are chasing your own tail.
From: krw on 13 Jun 2010 17:58 On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:50:22 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:43:31 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:08:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:24:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Oh, and how do you suppose you get an "original design" into production >>>>>> without an ECO? >>>>> >>>>> You must also be an acronymical retard as well. >>>>> >>>>> There is a difference between a design release and a change order of an >>>>> existing design. >>>>> >>>> So you guys release new designs without due ECO process? I sure hope you >>>> don't design anything that can harm people. >>> >>> AlwaysWrong doesn't design anything, so no he doesn't release ECOs. Everyone >>> else here who does, uses an ECO process, certainly. >> >> >>Yup. >> >>Maybe they have a different release process for new stuff even though it >>typically _changes_ a product from previous to next generation. Having >>two different release processes doesn't strike me as particularly smart, >>but who knows :-) > > ECO is NOT for a "release", and not all releases are next gen designs >of previous work, idiot. AlwaysWrong is , *SURPRISE*, wrong again. It is an engineering change to the database so an Engineering Change Order is necessary. It's really that simple, AlwaysWrong. You should know simple, by mirror. > Two proofs that you are chasing your own tail. DimBulb just can't avoid the hind-end references.
From: krw on 13 Jun 2010 17:58 On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:47:50 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:30:46 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:08:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:24:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Oh, and how do you suppose you get an "original design" into production >>>>> without an ECO? >>>> >>>> >>>> You must also be an acronymical retard as well. >>>> >>>> There is a difference between a design release and a change order of an >>>> existing design. >>>> >>> >>>So you guys release new designs without due ECO process? I sure hope you >>>don't design anything that can harm people. >> >>AlwaysWrong doesn't design anything, so no he doesn't release ECOs. Everyone >>else here who does, uses an ECO process, certainly. > > The ECO process is for changes made to a design, not the original >document. AlwaysWrong is *ALWAYS* wrong. No shock, though.
From: Nico Coesel on 13 Jun 2010 18:02 Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:23:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >> >>It seems you have never dealt with the financials in production? >>Component culling is heavily frowned upon by CFOs and accountants, for >>obvious reasons. > > > It seems that you have never dealt with the electronics industry for >the last 50 years. > > Matching and culling was REQUIRED in many instances due to so many >variables that were around back then. You have no clue. You also have >no clue as to how such needs and tasks (and designs) were optimized to >minimize losses. One of my former teachers had an interesting statement where it came to tolerances: "Electronics is the art of cancelling component variations." IOW: design smart and tolerances are not a problem at all. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: krw on 13 Jun 2010 18:07
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:02:51 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: >Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > >>On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:23:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>> >>>It seems you have never dealt with the financials in production? >>>Component culling is heavily frowned upon by CFOs and accountants, for >>>obvious reasons. >> >> >> It seems that you have never dealt with the electronics industry for >>the last 50 years. >> >> Matching and culling was REQUIRED in many instances due to so many >>variables that were around back then. You have no clue. You also have >>no clue as to how such needs and tasks (and designs) were optimized to >>minimize losses. > >One of my former teachers had an interesting statement where it came >to tolerances: > >"Electronics is the art of cancelling component variations." > >IOW: design smart and tolerances are not a problem at all. This works on chips, but not boards. It's pretty tough to cancel independent variables. |