Why is electronics so complicated?

Because it is not a profession, not a hobby, it is a life time commitment to learning.

But it is in fact very simple. Look at it from the perspective of the electron.

They are not the same. Sometimes one can choose from a number of similar parts, sometimes not. Sometimes one can save money by using a cheaper part. Sometimes the better/more expensive part is needed. Those sorts of tradeoffs are part of the job.

Central planning is a *BAD* idea. The economics of parts doesn't resemble the consumer marketplace at all, except that prices plummet, and for similar reasons (there *is* that competition between competing parts).

No one reads color codes anymore. ;-) Most parts don't even have them. Too small.

It's been tried, often. It never works acceptably, perhaps because analog electronics doesn't do well in technologies that are designed for processors. The Cypress PSoC is one of the later attempts at it. We'll see how popular it becomes.

People have tried. If you think you can do it, go ahead. There are sites like opencores, for programmable logic. It's unreasonable, IMO, to expect it to all coalesce under one roof. What's in it for corporations?

And in the hardware world, washers can be of any material (nylon, brass, steel, galvanized, stainless, aluminum...) and any exterior dimension, internal hole size or even shape, and some are even wedge-formed or spherical. All perform the same function, essentially. Just, not the same function, exactly.

its a free market, people keep thinking they can do bettter.

not with trs, where you get a mix of device specs on each wafer. Its a case of how can we specify our tr models to maximise customer desire and total income per wafer. And naturally, opinions are ever varied.

it doesnt

I've wondered about that too. The downside is that the parts wont match end user's desired specs well, and a lot of the component modules sold dont get used, which tends to up the price. Nonetheless for some largeish systems it could prove a very versatile chip, effectively a tiny analogue computer.

massive project. Who would pay for it and why?

not really a problem. Date the presentations, and present them in an order that takes into account how often they're read, which will follow the relevance of teh technology at the time.

hugely so. To do what you suggest in just one area would be prohibitively expensve, and you've not offered a viable business model.

If you've got enough nouse to do electronic engineering you can teach yourslf, there's no real need for what you're proposing afaik.

NT

I used to work for a company that did Infra-red imaging, and other high performance electro-optical work. Apparently, someone in the USSR asked just that question, and because it had a government controlled economy they could do something about it: all Soviet EO equipment had to use "stock" lenses, ordered from a catalog; optical designers simply couldn't have custom lenses made.

What could simplify life more?

So, Soviet IR imaging equipment was tremendously bulkier than its Western competition (because of the need for lots of off-the-shelf lenses instead of a few custom made ones), and it never worked as good.

But keeping the shelves stocked was easy.

Part of the answer is that each company wants to have its own answer -- TI makes a part that does function A, so Linear Tech needs to address that market, too. But they can't do it exactly the same as TI, because they'll be competing head-to-head with TI and they'd rather address a slightly different market. Or TI and Linear both come out with their parts at the same time, so don't have time to copy one another.

Another part of the answer is that new parts are constantly coming out, and each one contains refinements that weren't possible or weren't conceived in the previous generation.

So who would impose standardization? The government? We live in a free market economy. The manufacturers? That would cause problems with anti-trust laws. The customer community? The folks who _want_ to have a variety of chips to choose from, so they can find just the right mix of features in one package?

And once you do impose standardization, how can you innovate? Over half of the innovation that happens in the IC world is dreaming up new specifications and designing to them -- how can you dream up new specifications if the specs are dictated from On High?

I have no answer to that -- but your 1% resistor markings aren't a problem any more, because the current standard 1% resistor is a 0603 or

0402 surface-mount part with no markings at all!

It's been tried. I've been a pro for over 20 years now, and I've seen this done at least three times. Each one has been the coolest thing in the world according to its marketing folks , and a big resounding flop in the real world.

Unless you're talking about op-amps, of which there are zillions of different types, usually with lots of overlap between which ones will do just fine in a given circuit.

Now this is a good idea. I think it's what EDN and EE Times would like to do, if they could figure out how to make money at it. They're actually pretty close, if you read their sites.

Part of the problem is that what you want would be hugely expensive. It's not a matter of "don't be lazy" -- it's a matter of "don't bother weeding the fallow fields when the harvest needs to be brought in".

Part of that is marketing buzz. Learn to see past it.

I like your Wiki idea best. If you can figure out how to combine that with advertising revenue you could support yourself.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Competition. Every company and every country wants to have their own little 40V NPN transistor :-)

No, a good design engineer specs in various part numbers from different manufacturers. The same goes for many other products. Tomorrow I'll have to change the oil on our cars. I can buy a Fram oil filter, or a Bosch filter, or a ... in the end they all filter the same oil on the same cars.

Or, why are there three different brand gas stations at many intersections, all gas and prices being more or less the same?

The topper is dark brown lettering on black ICs :-)

There have been many attempts but prices were too high, us analog guys didn't bite, and the products fizzled in the marketplace. Cypress PSoCs come closest to what you desire, they have configurable analog blocks in there.

There's tons of them. Books like Art of Electronics (must have), site like Discovercircuits that are suited for beginners, ham radio sites, huge application note collections and so on.

Not really. I still use CD4000 logic and 2N3904, like I did 30 years ago.

That becomes easier with practice. A lot easier.

:-)

That's why we have Usenet. If you get stuck and have really tried, ask.

T'was the same with me. Best is to pick a few favorite parts and stick with those a while, then slowly expand the selection.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Because we like it that way?

Seriously, if you are willing to settle for living a lifestlye of a century ago, it is not very complicated.

At the age of 70 I regret that I will not be around for another 70 years of discovery and invention?

There are some stable areas of technology that one can pursue (blacksmith, buggy whips beach combing, etc.. ) but technology is leading the way to improvements there as well.

The tougher the job the more the pay and the better self satisfaction! Gotta go now, so much to learn and so little time left...

John Ferrell W8CCW

[snip]

Ain't that the truth! I'll turn 71 in February, but I don't feel "old" :-) ...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     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

The other side of the coin is that this phenomenom encourages resourcefulness and ingenuity at the design level The Russians were, and still are, world leaders in certain areas. Here is just one example:

Commercial innovation is not altruistic, but motivated by returns. This is ultimately supported by the end user - that's us..

The shift of manufacturing to Asia has no doubt also contributed to the unmanagable diversity of electronic parts. It would be fair to ask though whether cost cutting, planned obsolscence, or marketing ploys are true "innovations". I still prefer a phonograph over an MP3 player.

Ah, I think I see a pattern emerging. Illegible markings were the industry's way of priming us for no markings at all. Very clever then. And the lead in the solder impairs our ability to think independently.

A notable example of successful modules in the analog world is audio power amps. Function generator chips are close. But if you want an "all purpose" DC to 100MHz linear power amp with adjustable offsets and impedance get out the big bucks.

It is already expensive. Not to suppliers but to individuals and small businesses at ground level. How many old-timers have said, "here is a newcomer asking THATquestion again". Multiply that by thousands every month. Time is more than money. It is life, enthusiasm, and intellectual resources that could be put to more productive use elsewhere. There is the "harvest" you mentioned earlier in your post.

Eric Marlow

But why do they want to change the pin configurations? I found a NPN transistor F370 or somesuch that has the collector and emitter reversed. They kept the base in the middle, but switched the other two. It works just fine if you turn it 180 degrees.

-Bill

Somehow, I fear that your explanation is not descriptive enough *for him*, in an all too descriptive way.

If one wants to make a meter needle move and indicate a certain level of a certain event to him, one must make a circuit that converts between the signals of the source to the signals that the meter needs to provide to observer with a meaningful indication of the desired effect, event, level or such.

There is no "hook up da meter and it goes" "off the shelf" solution.

That is true in nearly ALL cases. The circuit and meter that measures a bullet speed, and the meter that measures your body temperature are two entirely different measurement devices, and require two entirely different circuits in front of the actual "meter" to drive it.

We just happen to call them both "a meter".

So, your (the op) assertion that the "parts" are "all essentially the same" is ludicrous, at best. It was ludicrous back at the beginning of the previous century, and it is more so at the beginning of this century.

If this guy has EVER used a cell phone, he needs someone to tell him that the "circuit" in that phone would take up a basketball court sized building to house it id it were back in the 50s when Dick Tracy comics were around.

We make them smaller and smaller so we can put more inside each element and make the gadgets we make with those elements work better, use less power, and take up less space.

The "parts' in now way shape or form "perform essentially the same function", or we could get online with our clock radio.

Who implied "all" parts needed to be the same? Obviously not possible.

Granted, with specialization, this ideal becomes less relevant. But what about the rest of the field? The foundations, so to speak, that set the tone for this discipline.

I am referring to more "basic" applications, and there are far too many to mention, that could benefit from a periodic consolidation of both design and componentry.

IMHO there is a tipping point beyond which choice and redundancy costs disproportionately more. If you don't believe it, take the misses into a store that sells specialty bathroom fittings :-)

Elsewhere, this type of cost may be better hidden, beneath a veneer of complacency.

Eric Marlow

For discretes, voltage ratings often are to blame for the plethora of seemingly similar parts. This is especially true for capacitors, where you need to insure the dielectric isn't punched through. That requires different materials or more space.

...

Hi Eric

Your (one of) your wishes is fullfilled:

TUP- TUN- DUS- DUG:

Quote: "... Circuits, as published and used by German Elektor and Dutch Elektuur, contain universal transistors and diodes to the abbreviations TUP (Transistor Universal PNP), TUN (Transistor Universal NPN), DUS (Diode Universal Silicon), and DUG (Diode Universal Germanium). This way, it is simple to fit many transistors and diodes in categories and it makes component selection quite easy. ..."

But the most fun happens with power MOSFETs and microcontrollers (years ago it was analog (HF, AF)-amplifiers).

MOSFETs (actually SOSFETs) are the most used semiconductor component used today - in (computer, microcontroller)-chips. Why? They use only power when switching.

And the "problem" with microcontrollers - guess:

Robot Beacon:

Quote: "... There are at least three manufacturers of microcontrollers suitable for this application and it's a nightmare trying to work out the best type to promote. The problem is: each type has its own language and its own set of idiosyncrasies. Some chips have good features and others have different features, some chips have lines that are input-only, some have more lines or more memory, etc etc etc. ..."

E.g. look at:

competition.

Da comrade!

competition.

blue is for metal film. 1% is the brown band spaced differently at one end.

op-amps, power amp modules, such things exist.

--
?? 100% natural

Perhaps that's for when you get the silkscreen wrong :)

--
?? 100% natural

)

ar

part.

deoffs

I wrote a draft company standard for op-amps at Cambridge Instruments (if Cambridge UK) in the late 1980's. It ended up listing some 150 op- amps, most of them matched to one or two specific jobs.

The cheapest - the LM324 - wasn't much good at any of them, but if you didn't need much in the way of performance it was cheap and - with four in 14-pin DIP package - pretty compact.

There were fast and slow op amps with low input bias currents, fast and slow op amps with low offset voltages, a variety of of op amps with relatively low - and well specified - input noise figures, and a bunch of relatively fast op amps, some designed for regular voltge feedback, and some designed for "current feedback".

I'd used about half of them myself in various applications, anf there wasn't one that we coould have chucked out without degrading the performance of one or other of our products.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Do you ever get the impression the manufacturers are not producing more versatile or tailorable packages just so they can move more stock?

Eric marlow.