AI Will Create More Jobs Than It Eliminates By 2027

The DDS is a frequency divider, so the same jitter at a lower frequency is an improvement of the modulation index.

In the real world, there is the ground bounce of 10000s of flipflops that adds to the generated clock, a shorted phase accumulator, a shorted sine table, a bad DAC, VCC noise, buffer amplifier etc, so I would not pin my hopes too high.

The phase noise of the PLL VCO is probably nothing to write home about. Maybe a chain-of-inverters oscillator loaded by varicaps, no hi-Q structure that suppresses all noise more than a KHz away at 100 MHz. Improving the phase noise via 3V3 Vtune and the phase comparator / low pass is probably hopeless.

Remember, jitter is phase noise integrated over all frequencies. Quieting as much frequencies as possible is a good thing.

They have also <

for €1150 each, but with impressive phase noise of -180 dBc/Hz a few KHz away @ 100 MHz. Not completely impossible, but close to the wall. See U. Rhode's and/or Rubiola's article on phase noise collapse in cross correlation measurements.

Horses for courses. I'm more interested in high frequencies as in X-band.

Can't you abstain from these cheap poison shots? I mean, ALL OF YOU? It takes the fun out of s.e.d.

Gerhard

By re-synchronising the outputs of the FPGA in an ECLinPs latch you can get around the ground bounce (and rail noise) inside the FPGA.

Setting up the clocks so that the ECLinPS latch picks up the FPGA data when it is stable does take care, and if the propagation delays inside the FPGA are allowed to get long enough it can be impossible, but that would just be bad design.

Those certainly aren't routes that would lead to lower phase noise.

A fast low-jitter external oscillator would be a better choice/

But it doesn't address all the problems.

John Larkin's signature line is

"John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics"

and he has also talked about doing "insanely good electronics" without being all that convincing. If you post deceptive advertising, you should expect to be called on it, which is part of the fun of s.e.d.

Why do you keep squabbling? You haven't actually tested any of his products, so you're hardly in a position to criticize.

You come across as someone bored stiff. It can't be very intellectually rewarding to always repeat the same mindless arguments, now can it? Haven't you got anything better to do?

Jeroen Belleman

He reveals enough of his detailed design to give plenty of opportunity for criticism. Testing real hardware with proper test gear lets you do a proper job, but few of us are lucky enough to have access to those kinds of expensive toys.

I'm not arguing with him - just jeering at his attempts to look clever. I'm not bored stiff, but I don't have anything like enough to - I do apply for jobs from time to time,and have got the occasional interview, but 83-year-olds aren't attractive recruits.

One customer orders embedded DDGs by the hundreds.

And

No, an economical design is as challenging as a more serious one. It just has different trade-offs.

In a sense, feature-itis is the easy and ignorant way out.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Part of our X116 prototype board was to experiment with signal crosstalk in the Efinix T20 FPGA. We ran some signals from pin to pin, over various paths, and measured the delay and jitter. We enabled/disabled some other logic blocks, including the DDS and four long pseudorandom shift registers.

We resolved zero crosstalk effects. We did conclude that a very good

RF is a different world from pulse generation. Different personalities even.

And it chases good people away.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Especially 83-year-olds who jeer at other people.

The only thing that "lunatic fringe" advertises for is people, specifically lunatics.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

A 30 MHz scope used to cost as much as a Cadillac. Now a 200 MHz color scope (with probes) costs as much as a nice dinner for two. Well, with wine.

One can set up a very good electronics lab nowadays for way under $1000. Parts, part kits, eval boards, PCBs are cheap now too.

We just bought a 6 Ghz VNA for $280. JPCPCB 4-layer boards are crazy cheap, bare board or assembled.

Build something. You'll feel better. Post pics.

I'm autistic enough that I don't care much about praise or disapproval. I like to talk about electronics, and I've found that discussing what I'm working on is valuable, sort of public brainstorming.

And SED does need topics. Most people censor what they are actually doing for various reasons. I don't have to do that. You are probably mistaking vanity for recklessness.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Getting a job at 83 is a pipe dream. The only way would be to strike out on your own. If you have any ideas for designs that might evoke interest, we could have constructive conversations. As it stands, I see no point in continuing.

Jeroen Belleman

Attending maker events is a way to get consulting business.

I attend events that allow 1-minute pitches. One could offer free consulting/brainstorming and get some action going.

I find a table near the food/beer and spread out some PCBs and prototypes, and people ask about them. It's fun.

There are tons of startups around here and many are weak on actual electronics.

Thursday night I heard a pitch for a company that's proposing to build a fusion reactor that not only makes electricity, but does alchemy, transmutes mercury to gold with the surplus neutrons.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Oh, golly ... I'm waiting for the IPO ... unless the SEC gets to them first!

If you look at the comments I've published in Review of Scientific Instruments since 1972, you will find that I've been jeering for quite a while.

It's called informed criticism in that sort of context, and can be quite useful. Phil Hobbs found a reference to my first ever published comment (in 1972) in volume 6 of the Series "Experimental Physics", which amazed me.

It probably doesn't have anything to do with my lack of success in job-hunting.

But you tend to have a lot more choices.

Get the best performance that's economically and technically possible isn't feature-itis. Feature-itis is writing a longer specification than you need to, offering the customer options that they might want to use.

For a while Cambridge Instruments sold and maintained a Lintech voltage-contrast add-on box for our electron microscopes, and that included all sorts of features that didn't work all that well, and putting them in had clearly diverted engineering effort from debugging the features that did matter.

For that you need customers. I haven't got any.

If I had any reason to build anything I'd probably feel a lot better. Posting pictures isn't in my DNA. It's a way of trying to impress people without informing them, which is your speciality.

Autism is very much a blanket diagnosis - a recent copy of New Scientist talked about four broad sub-groups of people who tended to be diagnosed as autistic, with the caveat that the was a lot of variation within those groups.

You do like to boast about electronics, but you don't do it all that informatively. The effort to be even moderately specific about what you are boasting about may clarify your thinking to some extent, but it's not brain-storming - more brain-occasional-showers.

Vanity does lead to some recklessness. There's no mistaking the vanity in your output, nor your disappointment when you don't get the adulation you crave. You clearly do workmanlike electronics, but that's it.

Hanging out with optimistic lunatics may be fun, but encouraging them is irresponsible.

Not a good idea. You've already got one more than is good for you.

The best is always the enemy of the good.

You don't seem to realise the difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism. The former helps to move things forward and encourages people to produce better work next time; the latter puts off the person you are criticising and deters them from trying to do better.

Destructive criticism in reviews or online comments is bad for the profession, bad for the publishers, and makes the critic look bad in the eyes of the readers because it is often a sign of bluster to cover up insecurity.

When you reply, it often helps to put yourself in the other person's shoes and consider whether they see your reply as benefitting them. giving them information which they might not have (in an encouraging way, not a disparaging one) and making them feel they would like to learn more about the subject. If you think they will see it as unhelpful jeering, don't post it.

Have you ever looked at the differences between yourself and those who got the jobs (apart from age). It doesn't matter how knowledgeable or clever you are, if you appear to adopt a curt or abrasive manner that will get up the noses of the people you work with, they won't want you in their organisation.

They won't change; you can if you try.