From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 4/12/2025 4:24 pm, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 16:17:03 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Exactly. Being goal-directed means that you have already decided the   
   > direction to go in.   
      
   Goal-directed means that you have decided where you want to end up, not   
   how you are going to get there.   
      
   > Maybe the best design is in the other direction.   
      
   A goal is a destination, not a route-map   
      
   > Our policy is to always stay confused for a while early in a design,   
   > and not latch on the the first idea (probably in a textbook) that   
   > might work.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)