TI new products

When one deals with ADC/DAC, the "samples" is implied, so why bother writing that? It's s^-1 or Hz if you wish. Heck, we could even use Bq to make the number of sampling events per second look distinct from what otherwise would suggest a clock line. :->

+1.

Best regards, Piotr

Gasoline consumption should properly be expressed in square meters.

Best regards, Piotr

It depends on how application-specific the ASIC is. If most of the subcomponents come from a library, that would make it easier to grasp. With what he started is another matter -- was it an FPGA-tested HDL code intended for hardening or verbal poetry?

Best regards, Piotr

I care. Patiently waiting for INA296.

Best regards, Piotr

INA281 is available. That's the unipolar current version.

And electron consumption? Don't tell me, N. Joule is the unit of work, consumption is J per meter where a joule is N·m, so J/m is just N.

Did I do that right?

It always bugs me that they use kWh for BEVs as it is a bastard unit. Converting to J/m uses a multiplier of 2.24, so at 300 Wh/mi you get 671 J/m or N. Not a bad unit and it becomes 671 kJ/km (still N) which is still workable if a bit awkward to write. So rounding off, I shoot to get 700 kJ/km or about 1100 kJ/mi if you must use miles. But no matter how I calculate the consumption, I still pay for electricity by the kWh which is 3.6 MJ.

E-bike advertisements are the worst! Batteries in AH, or V, anything but WHr or kJ. Motors specified in Whr... sigh.

CH

I missed something. How can a motor be specified in Wh? Watts, yes, but watt-hours? That makes no sense.

On a sunny day (Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:01:21 +0200) it happened Piotr Wyderski snipped-for-privacy@protonmail.com wrote in <t4k4it$21cqo$ snipped-for-privacy@portraits.wsisiz.edu.pl>:

It all depends, you asume 'experts' know it all I do remember a US spacecraft crashing on Mars as for the insertion burn they used the wrong units

its CNN, so its true ;-) Anyways one would expect thsoe 'experts' to notice. Does not cause anything to be clear...

It is true, sort of. The problem was a software interface specification was not followed by a subcontractor. Worse, the testing that should have been done to verify the interface was not done. This problem was nothing like the issue being discussed here. It was a systems design failure and the continued use by government contractors of antiquated measurement units.

You are discussing a simple choice of how to abbreviate a specification term. On any project, this would be standardized, even if the engineering community does not use a consistent term.

If dimensional analysis says it is newton, then... it is newton, whether you like it or not.

Best regards, Piotr

It makes sense, no? It's just how hard it needs to be pushed to keep it going.

Jeroen Belleman

In the case of fuel consumption it is simply the cross-sectional area of the imaginary stream of fuel that runs along the moving vehicle. The bigger the consumption, the bigger the pipe. Very picturesque and intuitive IMO.

Best regards, Piotr

Exactly my point. The people writing these advertisements are not physicists and do not understand units.

The point is, the units of Wh/mi or Wh/km can be turned directly into Newtons. Not sure how to turn any of that into a cross section of an electricity stream. I suppose it could be equated to the gauge of wire that would safely carry the current once a voltage is specified. Maybe assume a 240 volt, single phase AC source. But that's still not the same thing. The wire doesn't get consumed.

For an electric vehicle, maybe the number of AA alkaline cells per mile? For my car, it would be around 80 AA/mi.

Or they are actually smarter and we don't understand the message: a 1Whr motor might consume 1 watt and die after an hour of operation. My recent shredder that lasted 20 minutes appears to be powered by such a motor.

Best regards, Piotr

And, like old railways (incompatible track spacing) negotiation of interoperability requires an overall authority (federal, in the US) to write up a specification, and apply carrot (land grants for development of track) and stick (we'll yank this subsidy if you don't meet this standard) pressure.

Network neutrality is one essential. Internet is an interoperability imperative, also essential. Auctioning bandwidth and expecting the buyers to magically evolve an integrated whole... not compatible with application of stick, nor a usably aimed carrot.

We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet networks. It's not hard.

Well I've spent thirty years on standards, and actually it *is* hard. Not to mention glacial.

While the government can push for standards, absent a real shooting war, the pleas will generally fall on deaf ears. With a shooting war, there are usually large procurement contract on offer, and time is of the essence.

Whitworth Screw Threads are a classic example.

.

And it doesn't happen until at least a few big companies decide that they will gain far more from a standard than (bigger total pie) they will gain from no standard (my pie is smaller, but I have it all).

Once there is a standard, other companies are eventually forced to comply.

Nor does maturity and interoperability just happen. Taking Ethernet as the example, the industry supports and independent test facility and lab at the University of New Hampshire where various vendors connect into big "plugfests" where prototypes are cobbled into a network and the whole system is integrated. And even so, it usually takes two major revisions of a new standard to achieve reasonable maturity.

This is done under the aegis of a de-jure standards development organization (like the IEEE) for exception to anti-trust statutes that would otherwise forbid such things.

.

Joe Gwinn

But the dark secret of the standards world is that 90% of all standards fail in the market.