Building bridges is not a "regulated field"? Perhaps it should be.
I am not at all arguing for a free-for-all in all situations. But I see no reason either to pick the field with the most regulations, and blindly apply all its processes on the principle "more is better".
-- John Devereux
It is, but ... this is one reason why I do not believe in all this engineering licensing stuff. It is not adequately safeguarding the public as they claim. Often (or usually) there are proper procedures in place but then they are not followed. A classic case was also the recent Caltrans issue where now we can only hope that the concrete anchoring of the new Bay Bridge is really sound enough. We should be able to know, but we don't, and it's too late.
Agree. However, when it comes to the way of documenting discussed here I do not see what on earth is too onerous with the system I described. My philosophy is that if some more formal method can be adopted without extra work then it should be done, regardless of whether required by law or not. I have witnessed situations where that has saved the bacon.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
...and no airplanes have ever failed in flight nor have any drugs killed anyone.
Right. If the process works, it's goodness. If it doesn't, ditch it.
that's
A lot of SMPS are repaired without a schematic. That was how I learned, on computer terminals that wouldn't boot after lightning struck the building and took down the entire system. A schematic isn't much help on modern radios, with a dozen microprocessors and firmware that is loaded into DSP on power up.
-- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.