From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 2/12/2025 5:56 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 05:07:57 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/12/2025 3:02 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 21:35:40 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 1/12/2025 2:32 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>>>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 00:28:19 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Or are literate.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The illiterate can still look at pictures. Being able to write doesn't   
   >>>> guarantee that you can organise your ideas into a chunk of text that   
   >>>> other people will understand in the way that you want them to.   
   >>>> Whiteboard scribbles aren't structured text.   
   >>>   
   >>> A photo of an FPGA register map with notes is a serious document.   
   >>>   
   >>> Given a group of smart people, a good brainstorm session is a way to   
   >>> add (or multiply) their intelligence.   
   >>>   
   >>> But the personalities and the attitude have to be right. Some people   
   >>> can't brainstorm.   
   >>>   
   >>> You attitude that most people are dumber than you are would (no doubt   
   >>> has) poison a brainstorm session.   
   >>   
   >> It didn't. I don't make a habit of telling people that they are dumb. If   
   >> they tell me stuff that is demonstrably wrong I do try to get them to   
   >> recognise that they have to change their opinion, but it's a lot easier   
   >> to do that in a collaborative fashion in face-to-face encounters.   
   >> Some people do dig their heels in, but that doesn't happen in a well-run   
   >> brainstorming session.   
   >>   
   >>> We've had junior people, even   
   >>> interns, see something or say something that inspired cool ideas. The   
   >>> audience must be grateful for all ideas, to encourage ideas.   
   >>   
   >> That's a well-known feature of brain-storming sessions   
   >>   
   >>> "That violates conservation of energy, but there might be something   
   >>> there..."   
   >>>   
   >>> A brainstorm session is a way for a group of people to explore an   
   >>> infinite solution space by using parallel processing.   
   >>   
   >> No finite brain, nor any loosely linked collection of finite brains, is   
   >> going to explore an infinite solution space.   
   >   
   > Of course it can. It just can't find every possible solution.   
      
   Only in the sense of wandering around like a lost sheep. Exploration is   
   goal-directed and an infinite solution space has an infinite number of   
   goals.   
      
   >> Brainstorming is much less ambitious - it's just a mechanism for getting   
   >> people to think of less obvious potential solutions to the problem that   
   >> needs to be solved. There's a well known problem in multi-parameter   
   >> curve fitting where the search algorithm latches onto a local minimum in   
   >> the search space, and you can need to get the search process to check   
   >> out a bunch of more or less arbitrary points to get a feel for how deep   
   >> the minima may get.   
   >   
   > Even one brain has a lot parallel processing capability. The advantage   
   > of brainstorming is that it randomizes searches to break out of   
   > conventional wisdom, namely local minima. That's why an intern can   
   > inspire a genius.   
      
   Breaking out of conventional wisdom isn't exploring the whole solution   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)