KiCad Spice, Anyone Tried It?

Well, the market leaders by units in the field will be whatever is used in appliances like toaster ovens and microwaves - these are often

8-bit processors running on the metal. Followed by smart phones (iOS and Android, both are linux varients). Followed by automobiles (no idea).

Those 77 GHz radars used in automobiles are components. Probably only FPGAs or ASICs inside, but invisiblefrom the outside.

Well, "realtime" is not a binary property - it comes in degrees and kinds of urgency, not just yes or no.

Here is a good example from phased-array radars:

All otherwise unused radar timeline is spent sending search waveforms out. This is a background, non-realtime operation. It only matters that one gets enough search waveforms out onmoving-window average that things cannot slip through the radar fences and escape detection.

When a search waveform gets a hit, a realtime algorithm is triggered. One must get a verify waveform out within say a few tenths of a second, to ensure that the search hit was not a random blip, and to get a more accurate target location in both alt-az angle and slant range. Velocity is not yet known.

If verified, a track initiate sequence commences, the purpose being to determine the direction and speed of target motion before the target gets too away for re-acquisition to be practical. So all this is realtime, but a microsecond or even a millisecond here and there makes no difference. This is dominated by the physics of target motion and of radar, and not usually by computer issues.

The resulting data is used to create a new track data structure, and subsequent track maintenance requires only roughly periodic track waveforms to refresh the track data. In the air traffic world, the refesh is done every ten seconds or so, unless there is special interest in a track. For precision approach, two seconds is common.

Again, embedded does not mean small and really fast, although that's a common combination. Nor does it depend on the number of processors or cores employed. There is an official definition:

Embedded Application Support), also known as POSIX.13:

"3.2.7 Embedded Computer System: A computer (and its software) is considered embedded if it is an integral component of a larger system and is used to control and/or directly monitor that system, using special hardware devices."

One item from the corresponding Rationale: "Is the internal microprocessor controlling a disk drive an example of an embedded system? Yes, regardless of what the disk drive is used for. The software (firmware, actually) within the disk drive controls the HDA (head disk assembly) hardware and is hard realtime as well."

Special hardware devices are such things as radar hardware and rotary cement kilns. Disks, displays, and printers are not special devices.

As discussed above, there is in fact a clear definition of embedded. I'll grant that people did struggle with this, largely because embedded systems come in a wide variety, so counter-examples abounded. The earlier definition is what remained.

All of these things are possible solutions. The main constraint was computer power, which was often constrained by the physical environment in which the computer must operate.

Anti-aircraft missile guidance systems cycled at 64 to 128 Hz thirty years ago (set by the physics of arial pursuit) but even back then quaternions were used despite the very limited computer power that could fit into a 9" diameter missile body, because such a missile can go in any direction in 3D as it chases an wildly maneuvering target, and the mathematical equivalent of gimbal lock was expensive to prevent, so on whole, quaternions were faster to compute.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joe Gwinn
Loading thread data ...

is faster

y.

-

row and prosper. If there were no market there would be many fewer compani es and a much smaller economy.

only crime is success?

econds faster ends up in the pockets of those who have created that advanta ge.

or the long term. The people who make money out of rapid trading aren't.

Both people have nothing to do with the success of the company other than t he fact that they are required for the market to exist.

trades.

There are arguments for virtually any position you wish to take. Our feder al government is many many rather ridiculous arguments to the Supreme Court of the US these days.

bly do the trick - but it would make churning unprofitable.

And yet no one has explained how computer stock trading harms anyone, inclu ding you.

Where do we draw the line? Human only trading? Should humans receive no c omputer assistance? So they should be required to call a broker over the p hone to trade? Good for the cell phone companies I guess.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why computer trading is like shoot ing up heroin.

--

  Rick C. 

  ++-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  ++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply to
Ricketty C

provides liquidity ...

uying the lowest-bid

ghtly higher

rket equal for

There is no such thing as a market that is "equal for everybody", literally not possible. I have to wait for the servers that provide the information I am looking at as well as the delays in my Internet connection. How do I get info as fast as the guys who pay huge bucks to have faster access in t heir trading offices?

Are you going to institute a delay so that all traders get the same data at the same instant around the world?

l right; the

So should there be a time you are required to hold a stock? Are day trader s "parasitic"? What about traders who cycle over a week? A month? Person ally I like to outlast the long term capital gains holding period, so I'm n ot trying to compete on the microsecond level. I use limit orders, so I do n't have to worry about a computer snatching a $0.0001 better offer from me , I've already given up often a dollar or more to be sure the trade happens because I'm looking at a gain of ten to 100 times that.

Everyone is obsessed with the idea that computer trading is inherently unfa ir. It's part of the market. Life is not a level playing field. If you d on't like that you are welcome to leave... the market or life, your choice.

--

  Rick C. 

  ++-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  ++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply to
Ricketty C

They have, but you seem unwilling to comprehend.

That fits in with your being unwilling to state where the HFT mob's profits come from. Maybe you really do think they come out of thin air.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

is faster

.

osper.

That's a non-sequitur. "Who are they hurting?" is the question.

smaller economy.

only crime is success?

It's not a strawman, but merely the only argument being made since you have made none at all.

So true, no one can accuse you of spouting BS since you've said nothing.

--

  Rick C. 

  +++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  +++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply to
Ricketty C

buying the lowest-bid

lightly higher

market equal for

e.

ly not possible. I have to wait for the servers that provide the informati on I am looking at as well as the delays in my Internet connection. How do I get info as fast as the guys who pay huge bucks to have faster access in their trading offices?

at the same instant around the world?

Odd that you would mention that; one trader has done exactly that, inserted delay lines to equalize the distance-variable to all the brokerage houses in the tradin g network. It means that front-runners cannot get between his offer and the first low bid, regardless of their internal network speeds. This was because the observation was made that on no occasion, for years, was the lowest price of the day equal to the pri ce his customers had paid. Front-running with insider information is criminal, b ut with electronic speed advantage, it's merely parasitic.

all right; the

ers "parasitic"? What about traders who cycle over a week? A month? Pers onally I like to outlast the long term capital gains holding period, so I'm not trying to compete on the microsecond level. I use limit orders, so I don't have to worry about a computer snatching a $0.0001 better offer from me, I've already given up often a dollar or more to be sure the trade happe ns because I'm looking at a gain of ten to 100 times that.

fair. It's part of the market. Life is not a level playing field. If you don't like that you are welcome to leave... the market or life, your choic e.

Reply to
whit3rd

e. buying the lowest-bid

slightly higher

e market equal for

lse.

ally not possible. I have to wait for the servers that provide the informa tion I am looking at as well as the delays in my Internet connection. How do I get info as fast as the guys who pay huge bucks to have faster access in their trading offices?

a at the same instant around the world?

ed delay lines

ing network.

w bid, regardless of

de that

rice his

but with

What are you talking about? How can a trader control the delays other trad ers see??? By "trader" are you talking about one of the exchanges? That w ould be a huge project. Can you provide a link? Is this some small exchan ge somewhere?

Did they also push everyone's turbo buttons on their PCs so they all operat ed at 4.77 MHz?

--

  Rick C. 

  ++++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  ++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply to
Ricketty C

.

You can always read the prior posts. Stop being silly.

Tom Gardner is rarely silly.

Because you don't frame it in a way that admits of an answer.

Because it requires you to think about what is actually going on, rather th an sticking to the proposition that a free market always delivers the right product at the right price. 42.4% of American's are obese, because the US free market lets food suppliers deliver food which is addictive, rather tha n nutritious.

irrelevant questions. So clearly you have nothing relevant to say and I wo n't respond to this issue any further.

Or to paraphrase, Rick hasn't got an answer to the question, so refuses to answer it on the ground that he is convinced that it is irrelevant.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Some years ago, John said that average time span of his new products was two weeks from concept to shipped product.

He doesn't seem to sell much stuff that involved appreciable design effort, and there have been implications that a lot of the "new products" were minimal tweaks of existing product.

As if there was anything natural about hardware. All engineering is artifice -

"Armed-forces artificer, a service member skilled in working on artillery devices in the field".

There are usually lots of ways of solving a problem, all of them more or less equally effective - which makes the one you adopt an essentially arbitrary choice, though it is usually driven by previous experience.

Software is a branch of mathematics. If the numbers being manipulated don't reflect physical reality it isn't going to serve any useful purpose. One aspect of science is quantify aspects of physical reality, and that's where the numbers come from.

Only to people who don't know what's going on.

Or looks that way to people who don't know what's going on, and can't be bothered to find out. Buggy isn't specific to software - anything complicated tends to come out buggy, and getting the bugs out is part of the development process.

Software is a lot easier to tweak than hardware.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

As

go

ir is faster

ney.

h -

r

grow and prosper. If there were no market there would be many fewer compa nies and a much smaller economy.

This evades the question, by ignoring the nature of the market.

Companies grew and prospered when the market involved writing down the tran sactions in ledgers with pen and ink.

their only crime is success?

iseconds faster ends up in the pockets of those who have created that advan tage.

for the long term. The people who make money out of rapid trading aren't.

the fact that they are required for the market to exist.

The high speed traders could be put out of business tomorrow without making any difference at all to the companies whose stock they trade. The compani es get their capital from people who invest for the long term, and get rewa rded by dividends and long term capital appreciation.

et trades.

eral government is many many rather ridiculous arguments to the Supreme Cou rt of the US these days.

So what?

bably do the trick - but it would make churning unprofitable.

luding you.

It sucks money out of the market by offering stock cheap and selling it dea r over very short time scales, reducing the return for long term investors.

computer assistance? So they should be required to call a broker over the phone to trade? Good for the cell phone companies I guess.

oting up heroin.

It's not remotely like shooting up heroin. It's touted as market making - s omebody is always there to buys stock wherever anybody wants to sell it, an d willing to sell it on - very shortly thereafter - when somebody else want s to buy.

The same hardware could aggregate offers to buy an sell and automatically s plit what was on offer into packages that matched what people wanted to buy .

The catch would be that there would have to be a time delay before the volu me on offer would be diversified enough to allow matching to the offers to buy, and the selling prices and buying prices would have to be flexible eno ugh to allow the system to match the volume to be sold to volume that was b ought.

High frequency traders provide that flexibility by buying cheap and selling dear, and collecting the difference. The service seems to be over-priced.

One can see where it came from, but it does represent a less-than-satisfact ory scheme to provide the service to today's markets.

It evolved - in much the same way as the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe.

formatting link

It's high time it got replaced by an intelligent design.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

See ; the exchange is IEX.

Reply to
whit3rd

Ok, so some guy made a stock exchange in his basement. What does that have to do with high volume trading that include computer trading?

If you want to trade Tesla or Microsoft or other companies, you have to fight the market, meaning the ENTIRE market. Trading for you is simply not impacted in any meaningful way.

I did notice that the claim someone made of a company never getting the low trade of the day did not mention anything about losses. Probably because it is incalculable when you are competing against essentially the entire world!

This was supposed to be a thread about KiCad and Spice. What happened to that? (Careful, don't want to sound too much like Larkin)

--

  Rick C. 

  ----- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  ----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply to
Ricketty C

You've missed a /lot/ in that list, but yes - the huge majority of embedded systems are not running a "big" OS like Linux. And that is even if you include phones and tablets as "embedded systems", which I don't think is appropriate.

The vast majority of hard realtime systems do not use RHEL. The vast majority of RHEL systems are not hard realtime. There is, apparently, a niche where RHEL is used in hard realtime systems - though in fact the way you describe it, RHEL is not used in the realtime part.

The line between "component" and "embedded system" is as indistinct as other classifications we've been discussing. These systems will almost certainly have microcontrollers or processors (possibly inside an FPGA or ASIC, possibly outside), and I think it would be entirely reasonable to call them hard realtime embedded systems. Equally, it is entirely reasonable to consider them as black boxes used by other parts of the complete system. It's all a matter of viewpoint.

That's also a matter of definition. Many people would say realtime /is/ binary - either your system can guarantee to meet the deadlines, or it can't - and missing a deadline is a failure. (Controlled handling of failures is another issue altogether.) Others would say that only applies to "hard" realtime, and that you can have "soft" realtime where a few missed deadlines might be acceptable.

All you are saying is that you have timing requirements that are different for different aspects of the system and in different circumstances.

If a failure to meet those timing requirements is considered a major fault and the system is not good enough for the job, then it is a hard realtime system. If you can accept a certain limited decree of failure on these timings, it is a soft realtime system.

Agreed. But just because there is no fixed limitation here, does not mean you can't differentiate - it just gets hard in the grey area and boundaries.

POSIX is relevant only for a /tiny/ proportion of embedded systems.

That "definition" is as arbitrary as any other.

It is not clear, and it doesn't apply to more than a tiny fraction of embedded systems. (I can't point to any better definition as an alternative.)

Reply to
David Brown

Majority never claimed.

Depends on just how realtime it needs to be, as described later.

Yes.

We had a lot of these kinds of debates in the 1970s and 1980s.

The physical world sets the required response times, so in the '70s and '80s, computers were hard-pressed to keep up, so we did a lot of assembly code running on bare metal., and used a lot of expedient assemptions and ugly shortcuts.

But Moore's Law won over time. It has been 50 years since 1970. Over that time, by Moore's Law, computer performance increased by a factor of 11 billion.

But the physical world did not speed up, and it still sets the required response times. So we now can do lots of things that were unthinkable back then.

Yep. We always did that, even in the days of assembly code running directly on the metal, because we had to.

We to were that absolete, back in the day.

The 1003.13 Rationale lays out how their definition arose. It's almost a definition by exclusion.

Yes and no. VxWorks is the market leader by dollars, but certainly not by units. The current VxWorks conforms to POSIX.13, because Wind River's DoD customers insisted on standards compliance.

But I'll grant that it at least used to be unlikely that the microcontroller in a toaster oven had any OS at all, and these kinds of applications were and still are where the big volume by units is to be found.

Well, standards groups do make choices, and this definition was agreed by a formal Ballot Group.

Well, the POSIX.13 definition is actually quite clear. You have a different definition. What is it?

There is a Rationale, with all the counter-examples considered during adoption. I'll publish the relevant Rationale text in a new thread.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joe Gwinn

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.