Newer Model Instrumentation Amp
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 21 Jun 2010 21:29 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:17:02 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:jiuv16t9njsmb99maq0gi4ittc09p945th(a)4ax.com... >> Dunno about that! I was just combing though some BOMs looking for a couple >> nickels to squeeze and just happened to notice that we're using a $7 cap >> (Case-D 220uF 20% 16V) on one product. I have no clue why we're using that >> cap because we have a similar cap (Case-D 220uF *10%* 16V) that we pay $.70 >> for. Is that aluminum? $7 is amazing. We stock a 220u, 25v that's 19 cents. I was just reviewing my ADC board and noticed a half dozen 47 uF 25V tantalum caps, $2 each. We have a 33 uF in stock for 18 cents. Good enough. Some of the regulators, like 337s and 1117s want tantalums on their outputs. John
From: Joel Koltner on 21 Jun 2010 21:31 "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:88ahroFrdvU1(a)mid.individual.net... > krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> As far as the "SpecAns" goes, how about "FreqDomScope", or better, "that >> gizmo >> over there"? > "them thar thang over yonder" (for the guys from the west). I suppose with amateur radio guys "panadapter" counts too...
From: Joerg on 21 Jun 2010 21:34 Joel Koltner wrote: > "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message > news:88ahroFrdvU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> As far as the "SpecAns" goes, how about "FreqDomScope", or better, >>> "that gizmo >>> over there"? >> "them thar thang over yonder" (for the guys from the west). > > I suppose with amateur radio guys "panadapter" counts too... > But the really tranditional guys would never connect that to the IF, they'd have a Q-multiplier on there. With a tube, of course :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 21 Jun 2010 22:14 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:15:35 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:p120265i3rpmi20804ln9f4vbt1255hrhb(a)4ax.com... >> With lead times going out into forever, we're just lucky they've not had any >> purchasing disasters this year. OTOH, we have inventory of some components >> that go out three years, or more. > >That sounds like a pretty good strategy. Not really. Banks hate it. >> Actually it did. ;-) It's used in the football version of the unit you >> played with and came out a year before. The good news is that there is only >> one per board, the build numbers are in the low tens per year, and the >> product >> has *reallY* fat margins (5-10x that of what you saw). > >I didn't realize there were many markets that supported fatter margains than >the pro audio guys. Wow! Multiply an 87000 seat stadium by a $50 ticket, with free labor and come back to me. ;-) >Well, maybe jewelry or sporting goods... > >> The real problem is that engineering never saw prices after the original >> look-see in DigiKey during design. I asked our admin to dump the purchasing >> database by part number and I'm going through the BOM manually (actually, I >> placing the cost info into the schematic properties pages). I'm trying to >> get >> the IT folks to feed back the purchasing database into our engineering >> database at least monthly, but so far no one is very interested. > >That's a useful idea, and if it's automated you could easily run it, e.g., >every night or so. We're still just working on getting ORCAD CIS tied into >the Big Expensive MRP program; purportedly all the hooks and configuration >bits already exist, but someone needs to sit down and define the actual fields >we want to use, (more importantly) standardized methods of filling in those >fields, etc. -- and then actual start filling in all that data for the parts >that already exist in it. Only the layout guy has CIS. What good it is for him on 16.2 CIS when everyone else in on 15.7 is beyond me. The other hardware designer has his own copy of Orcrap tied to his spice license and I use the floater. >> I suspect the kids have never used them so make things up as they go. > >Yep, I think you're right. > >> As far as the "SpecAns" goes, how about "FreqDomScope", or better, "that >> gizmo >> over there"? > >We'll occasionally refer to, e.g., "the 8594" or "the 9020a," but if someone >isn't remembering the particular model number, it turns into "the really >expensive specan" or "the el-cheapo specan." :-) We only have one, and it's in the service department. Well, we do have FFTs on the scopes, witch is usually good enough for what I need.
From: krw on 21 Jun 2010 22:18
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:29:14 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:17:02 -0700, "Joel Koltner" ><zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >>news:jiuv16t9njsmb99maq0gi4ittc09p945th(a)4ax.com... >>> Dunno about that! I was just combing though some BOMs looking for a couple >>> nickels to squeeze and just happened to notice that we're using a $7 cap >>> (Case-D 220uF 20% 16V) on one product. I have no clue why we're using that >>> cap because we have a similar cap (Case-D 220uF *10%* 16V) that we pay $.70 >>> for. > >Is that aluminum? $7 is amazing. We stock a 220u, 25v that's 19 cents. Tantalum. >I was just reviewing my ADC board and noticed a half dozen 47 uF 25V >tantalum caps, $2 each. We have a 33 uF in stock for 18 cents. Good >enough. Some of the regulators, like 337s and 1117s want tantalums on >their outputs. We don't use alluminums. They don't like the RoHS process much. Damn Euro-commies. |