Top ten analog engineers
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 22 Dec 2009 20:25 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:17:47 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:10:56 -0600, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:47:30 -0600, "Tim Williams" >><tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >> >>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> >>>wrote in message news:rgf2j592j3fqg1625vircc4ik54ao2lf26(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> > How many OLD farts here even remember Eccles and Jordan? >>>>>> >>>>>> I do. I use their invention every day! >>>>> >>>>>Strictly speaking, isn't that digital? >>>> >>>> At a microscopic level EVERYTHING is ANALOG :-) >> >>--- >>Well... >> >>Since the charge carried by an electron is quantized at 1.602E-19 >>coulomb, we live in a world of grits rather than a world of Jello. ;) >>--- >> >>>Digital is a subset of analog, which is a subset of physics. >> >>--- >>If the charge carried by an electron is always the same, then the analog >>world, with its variable voltages and currents is just the illusion of a >>continuum and is, really, granular. >>--- >> >>>I have a major in all of them. ;-) >> >>Good for you! :-) >> >>JF > >Corpuscular doesn't make analog into digital. You can't design >digital circuits at the device level without analog concepts. --- True, but analog concepts consider the sand flowing through an hourglass to be a liquid when, at the bottom of things, it's really corpuscular. --- >It might be amusing to suggest a class (SED lurkers) problem... design >(at the CMOS transistor level) a three-input NAND, so that delays to >output from each input are identical. > >Can any of you out there (besides Hobbs) do that? --- Not enough data, I think... JF
From: Tim Wescott on 23 Dec 2009 02:15 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:31:42 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: > Tim Wescott wrote: >> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:28:44 -0800, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: >> >> > Tim Wescott wrote: >> > >> > [snip] >> >> >> >> So blow your own damn horn, and take those 'top ten' lists with a >> >> grain of salt. >> >> >> >> >> > Make sure you get a job with an outfit that lets you blow it. Rather >> > than one that labels your work 'proprietary' and has strict rules >> > about publishing even the stuff you do on your own time. >> > >> > And definitely don't go to work for an outfit that takes your work >> > and has the boss' idiot son-in-law present it to IEEE working groups. >> >> Personal experience? > > Boeing. I had an uncle who worked for Boeing; when I was getting close to the end of college (mid '80's) I started gently working on him for a job there, and was gently but firmly rebuffed. I thought he was suffering from hypertrophy of ethics (he probably could have gotten me in, even if I were the legendary idiot nephew). It wasn't until years later, after talking to ex-Boeing employees, that I realized he really was doing me a favor. >> I worked for years for an outfit that was very uneven in that regard -- >> when it came to really stupid scheduling snafus they were as >> shortsighted as they came. But they were good (or indifferent) about >> letting you publish stuff that didn't impinge on their specific >> technology. >> >> Even in a pathological company it's good to blow your own horn -- to >> get raises, so the boss realizes he needs to keep you on to generate >> fodder for his idiot son in law, and (most especially) so that when you >> can cut them loose there's a good pool of folks in your area who >> realize that you're good in your own right. > > But if you become known as the producer in your group, pretty soon > people will figure out that the idiot son-in-law isn't actually doing > his own work. That can be career limiting. Only at the one company. I suppose if you're at the only company in town and you really don't want to move it can be a hassle. -- www.wescottdesign.com
From: Jim Thompson on 22 Dec 2009 20:46 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:25:45 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:17:47 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: > >>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:10:56 -0600, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:47:30 -0600, "Tim Williams" >>><tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >>> >>>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> >>>>wrote in message news:rgf2j592j3fqg1625vircc4ik54ao2lf26(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> > How many OLD farts here even remember Eccles and Jordan? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do. I use their invention every day! >>>>>> >>>>>>Strictly speaking, isn't that digital? >>>>> >>>>> At a microscopic level EVERYTHING is ANALOG :-) >>> >>>--- >>>Well... >>> >>>Since the charge carried by an electron is quantized at 1.602E-19 >>>coulomb, we live in a world of grits rather than a world of Jello. ;) >>>--- >>> >>>>Digital is a subset of analog, which is a subset of physics. >>> >>>--- >>>If the charge carried by an electron is always the same, then the analog >>>world, with its variable voltages and currents is just the illusion of a >>>continuum and is, really, granular. >>>--- >>> >>>>I have a major in all of them. ;-) >>> >>>Good for you! :-) >>> >>>JF >> >>Corpuscular doesn't make analog into digital. You can't design >>digital circuits at the device level without analog concepts. > >--- >True, but analog concepts consider the sand flowing through an hourglass >to be a liquid when, at the bottom of things, it's really corpuscular. >--- > >>It might be amusing to suggest a class (SED lurkers) problem... design >>(at the CMOS transistor level) a three-input NAND, so that delays to >>output from each input are identical. >> >>Can any of you out there (besides Hobbs) do that? > >--- >Not enough data, I think... >JF Not just to satisfy equal delays... match paths, I care not the absolute delay for this question. It's a trick question (as if you didn't know ;-) ...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 | Help save the environment! Please dispose of socialism properly!
From: krw on 22 Dec 2009 20:48 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:44:12 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:15:36 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > >> >>How about the OLD analog guys? Eccles and Jordan, and >>Steinmetz? We all build on their foundation work. > >How many OLD farts here even remember Eccles and Jordan? Or Millman >and Taub ?:-) I used Millman and Taub's "Pulse and Digital Circuits" text for EE379/380 at UIUC in '73. I should still have it around here somewhere. I think it was one of the few I didn't pitch in my last move.
From: Tim Williams on 23 Dec 2009 03:10
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote in message news:bft2j5dkctqm7mb0c21cqs2uqdc6v0va2f(a)4ax.com... >>>It might be amusing to suggest a class (SED lurkers) problem... design >>>(at the CMOS transistor level) a three-input NAND, so that delays to >>>output from each input are identical. >> >>Not enough data, I think... >>JF > > Not just to satisfy equal delays... match paths, I care not the > absolute delay for this question. > > It's a trick question (as if you didn't know ;-) Well, the traditional three-NMOS-in-series, three-PMOS-in-parallel layout is equal, to a first approximation. If you want to count parasitic capacitance of each transistor to substrate, that will make things uglier, since the bottom NMOS has to discharge the two NMOS above it, plus all three PMOS and the wiring. Likewise, the rising edge becomes faster when 2 or 3 inputs are driven low simultaneously (PMOS working in parallel). Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |