How do you design these days?
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 2 Jan 2010 16:48 krw wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:09:03 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> krw wrote: >>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:23:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> krw wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:30:50 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> krw wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:35:41 +0000, Raveninghorde >>>>>>> <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: [...] >> Seriously, if you add up all the overhead and everything, that's when we >> realized in one company that we had almost no other choice but to >> contract out. > > You go to China, too. That is something he would *never* do. > Many of my clients don't either and that's ok. Plenty of good contract assemblers right here in our country. >>>>>> I really never saw any hardcore problems, >>>>>> most of my clients contract out. In many cases full turn-key. The only >>>>>> situation that I could imagine where in-house assembly makes sense is if >>>>>> you do super confidential stuff. Even high volume doesn't necessarily >>>>>> justify it because then you can get some really sweet deals in Asia. >>>>> The problem is that it's *low* volume and very seasonal. If we did a >>>>> couple hundred systems a year it was a lot. We've recently added >>>>> higher volume products (still only 2-5K per year) in a year-round >>>>> market. This helps the production situation but the original >>>>> market/products still have the same issues. >>>> There's reliable places that cater to that kind of situation. For >>>> example this one, a family-run business like in the good old days: >>>> >>>> http://www.wdburch.com/ >>>> >>>> Even when I asked them for a small 10-board prototype run for a new >>>> client they did not flinch, they just ran it and the week after we had >>>> the boards. >>> I'll have to keep them in mind (may come looking for the name again >>> later). We are production limited now and they have a pile of new >>> products they'd like to build. Summers are a triple problem since, in >>> addition to new builds, everything comes back from the field for >>> refurb. Add these newer non-seasonal products (we're production >>> limited on now) and something is going to give. >> >> Good point. This would also be a nice way to justify testing one of >> those contract assembly houses. Give them a few hundred boards and see >> how they stack up. I bet you'd be pleasantly surprised. I was. > > I'm sure everything would go right, until they don't. Really, our > other products aren't nearly so deadline driven but are capacity > limited. It would be smart to off-load some of them. We did contract > our battery charger (design and production). After some startup > grief, that seems to be going well. It was cheaper than building it > in house, except it looks cheap. ...at least the prototype does. A capacity limit is a serious reason to contract out some stuff. The boards I got back from places like Burch never looked cheap. Even the ones from Shenzen don't. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: who where on 2 Jan 2010 18:32 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:48:08 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: (snip) >A capacity limit is a serious reason to contract out some stuff. The >boards I got back from places like Burch never looked cheap. Even the >ones from Shenzen don't. Who do you use in Shenzen?
From: krw on 2 Jan 2010 19:23 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:48:08 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:09:03 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> krw wrote: >>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:23:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:30:50 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> krw wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:35:41 +0000, Raveninghorde >>>>>>>> <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: > >[...] > >>> Seriously, if you add up all the overhead and everything, that's when we >>> realized in one company that we had almost no other choice but to >>> contract out. >> >> You go to China, too. That is something he would *never* do. >> > >Many of my clients don't either and that's ok. Plenty of good contract >assemblers right here in our country. The point being that he's been bitten badly in the past. He likes being in control of his destiny, even with all the problems. > >>>>>>> I really never saw any hardcore problems, >>>>>>> most of my clients contract out. In many cases full turn-key. The only >>>>>>> situation that I could imagine where in-house assembly makes sense is if >>>>>>> you do super confidential stuff. Even high volume doesn't necessarily >>>>>>> justify it because then you can get some really sweet deals in Asia. >>>>>> The problem is that it's *low* volume and very seasonal. If we did a >>>>>> couple hundred systems a year it was a lot. We've recently added >>>>>> higher volume products (still only 2-5K per year) in a year-round >>>>>> market. This helps the production situation but the original >>>>>> market/products still have the same issues. >>>>> There's reliable places that cater to that kind of situation. For >>>>> example this one, a family-run business like in the good old days: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.wdburch.com/ >>>>> >>>>> Even when I asked them for a small 10-board prototype run for a new >>>>> client they did not flinch, they just ran it and the week after we had >>>>> the boards. >>>> I'll have to keep them in mind (may come looking for the name again >>>> later). We are production limited now and they have a pile of new >>>> products they'd like to build. Summers are a triple problem since, in >>>> addition to new builds, everything comes back from the field for >>>> refurb. Add these newer non-seasonal products (we're production >>>> limited on now) and something is going to give. >>> >>> Good point. This would also be a nice way to justify testing one of >>> those contract assembly houses. Give them a few hundred boards and see >>> how they stack up. I bet you'd be pleasantly surprised. I was. >> >> I'm sure everything would go right, until they don't. Really, our >> other products aren't nearly so deadline driven but are capacity >> limited. It would be smart to off-load some of them. We did contract >> our battery charger (design and production). After some startup >> grief, that seems to be going well. It was cheaper than building it >> in house, except it looks cheap. ...at least the prototype does. > > >A capacity limit is a serious reason to contract out some stuff. The >boards I got back from places like Burch never looked cheap. Even the >ones from Shenzen don't. Not the board, though I don't like red solder mask. ;-) I haven't taken the board out to inspect it; not my project. The plastic case looks cheap. Since the PS is a rat-in-a-snake, the charger itself feels cheap. Again, not my issue.
From: John Larkin on 2 Jan 2010 20:03 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:41:54 -0800, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:7glpj5l1a7i5nm45bsp5gfhc016e3kjgo8(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:10:22 -0700, Don Lancaster <don(a)tinaja.com> >>>It is NEVER right the first time. >> We sell about 80% of our rev A boards, with no prototypes. Assuming >> the first unit won't work is self-fulfilling, and a good way to make >> sure the third iteration won't work either. > >I agree with your philosophy John... but you do allow yourself a non-zero >number of blue wires or a couple of tack-soldered components or something on >those saleable rev. A boards too though, right? Sure, that happens. But it's supposed to be embarassing. We make blue boards and I think we should use red wires. But production insists on blue. John
From: John Larkin on 2 Jan 2010 20:05
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:40:59 -0000, "markp" <map.nospam(a)f2s.com> wrote: > >"Don Lancaster" <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote in message >news:7q40n8FojqU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> John Larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:01:44 -0000, "markp" <map.nospam(a)f2s.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> "RogerN" <regor(a)midwest.net> wrote in message >>>> news:ROudnXLvg9-Tm6HWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >>>>> When I was in school components fit on solderless breadboards and we >>>>> made circuits using breadboards, power supplies, meters and >>>>> oscilloscopes. Many of today's components don't appear to be breadboard >>>>> friendly, so how is it done today? >>>>> >>>>> Is circuit design software and simulation good enough to go straight to >>>>> a PC board? Or do you use surface mount to breadboard adapters? Do >>>>> you still use a soldering Iron to solder or paste solder and an oven? >>>>> >>>>> I'm wanting to tinker with some circuits but some chips I'm interested >>>>> in only comes in MSOP or other packages that look intimidating to >>>>> attempt to solder. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> RogerN >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I tend to design a PCB with CAD software then have prototype PCBs made. >>>> There are several companies out there who do 'pooling', i.e. they >>>> amalgamate many designs onto one PCB, that way you end up only paying a >>>> small fraction of the tooling cost of the PCB. Some companies can handle >>>> 6 layer boards with this process. Example in the UK is PCB Snap from >>>> Spirit Circuits (www.spiritcircuits.com). >>>> >>>> This can be quite cost effectve for producing protptypes that are as >>>> close to the final product as practicable. >>> >>> Why not go for the real thing, first time? If you get it right, you >>> can sell it. >>> >>> John >>> >> >> It is NEVER right the first time. >> > >Analogous to the software world where every program has at least one bug and >can be re-written in a better way with fewer lines. So therefore every >software program can be reduced to one line of code that doesn't work! > >Mark. > That's much more efficient than a million lines that don't work. Execution time is better, too. John |