From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 30/11/2025 4:56 pm, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Sat, 29 Nov 2025 11:17:12 -0800, Joerg    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/29/25 3:38 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>> On 29/11/2025 8:56 am, Joerg wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/28/25 1:32 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:   
   >>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:52:07 -0800, Joerg    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 11/28/25 12:45 PM, Joerg wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> [...]   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> To the surprise of my clients it's the contrary. The most   
   >>>>>>> client-shocking redesign was an auto-align circuit for ganged   
   >>>>>>> ADC-channels. High speed, high phase accuracy and all that. They   
   >>>>>>> had an   
   >>>>>>> elaborate time domain method with a fat DSP, lots of code and very   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    I meant they used a frequency domain method.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> expensive chips used as programmable delay chips. The NRE alone had   
   >>>>>>> been   
   >>>>>>> humongous. It never reliably converged so the system hung a lot. I   
   >>>>>>> suggested to ditch all that and use time domain. This caused an uproar   
   >>>>>>> because I had rocked the boat a lot and usually consultants aren't   
   >>>>>>> supposed to do that. "I don't think this can possibly work", "It won't   
   >>>>>>> deliver the accuracy", "It won't converge either" and all that.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yet the boss let me do it. In the end the whole thing dropped from   
   >>>>>>> three-digit dollars in HW to under 10 bucks. Instead of expensive   
   >>>>>>> discrete-step time delay chips I used inductors, caps and varicap   
   >>>>>>> diodes   
   >>>>>>> for almost infinite granularity. The DSP became unemployed because the   
   >>>>>>> connected PC could easily handle the computations. It converged in   
   >>>>>>> less   
   >>>>>>> than a second, always. The NRE was low because it took less than two   
   >>>>>>> weeks of my time and less than a day for the programmer, and we didn't   
   >>>>>>> need an expensive DSP programmer.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Embarrassing.  Were any of the customers design team later   
   >>>>> defenstrated?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, they were pretty good. It's the usual phenomenon where, in an old   
   >>>> German saying, you can't see the forest because of all the trees.   
   >>>   
   >>> Brainstorming is designed to get around that to some extent, but if you   
   >>> aren't used to thinking outside the box it's difficult to step back far   
   >>> enough to get outside the box.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> My experience with brainstorm sessions is not good. The results are   
   >> often encouraging but then hardly anything of it gets documented and   
   >> typically none of it is implemented. All I need is a large whiteboard   
   >> or a large piece of paper. Plus coffee or mate (having a mate right now).   
      
   It's a desperation measure to break up some kind of intellectual log-jam.   
      
   It isn't going to work all that often. Documenting it is a chore, but it   
   does need to be done   
      
   > Brainstorming is great, done right.   
   >   
   > We sign and date our whiteboard scribbles and photograph them and   
   > stash the pics in the project notes folder.   
      
   Great for people who like visualisation.   
      
   > Our ideas are certainly implemented.   
   >   
   > We had a great one last week. I designed a relay/circuit breaker   
   > module and we came up with a nice way to let user's gang breakers.   
      
   By which you mean what? Tripping one circuit breaker trips associated   
   circuit breakers? And the user can set up groups, all of which trip at   
   the same time?   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)