Eagle library editor

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:40:35 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:07:39 -0500, "krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:59:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:13:56 -0800, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 09:23:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:29:04 -0800, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
[...]


*Rarely* is the value of a resistor needed to understand the functioning of a
circuit. If it is, chances are that it didn't change. ...
In my line of work they do need component values, a lot. "Why is there
only 1.9V? It doesn't compute ... S..t! Someone changed R92 from 12.1k
to 14.3k but the schematic says 12.1k!"
Our repair techs weren't that good. The idea wasn't to hire expensive help.

Ok, if they couldn't read schematics anyway that explains your
reluctance here. We needed top-notch guys because most med gear is
rather complex and requires techs to have a basic understanding of how
amplifiers, uCs, logic chips and such work. Many of our techs had
associates degrees. We also fostered (via hefty financial aid) a path to
a bachelors degree so they got a chance to move into engineering. That
was a major morale booster, one of the best things we ever decided.
They can read schematics, alright. Calculate what voltage should be, not so
much. At least one had an associates. Not sure about other but he'd have a
better chance of figuring out such things (and old-school tech).
Then they would not be able to use a scheamtic to any useful potential,
at least not often.
Of course they can. Even with *no* values shown schematics show the circuit
topology very well. In fact, when we sent schematics to UL, et. al., all
values were stripped from them. They were happy with that.
Don't try that with a primary switcher on a med device, or with a unit
for RTCA/DO-160 aircraft approval, they'll throw it right back at ya.
It's sorta important whether the resistor across the barrier is 50M or
50k and they won't be bothered with having to measure all those.
I have *no* interest in living with the crap you have to put up with. I'd
rather design stuff than jump through government hoops for a living.

Second that. Somebody has to design and build life-critical stuff, but
I don't want to. I can probably design five times as many new things
per year if I don't have to conform to *anybody's* standards. And
since designing new things is what I like to do, I avoid standards.

A lot of our products are risky and speculative. We push parts, push
performance, make a couple, and put them on the web site, or loan
protos to customers, and see what happens. We don't need no stinkin'
marketing department! We couldn't do that in a regulated environment.

A couple of our OEM customers do take our stuff through CE and UL as
part of their systems, and we make any changes they require, but the
hasslefactor is low there.

I've had no problems with CE/UL/CSA. As long as the product is well
designed there's usually little to nothing that needs changing.

Once you start to deal extensively with a heavily regulated field it
pretty much seems to make you uncompetitive in fast-moving commercial
or speculative R&D products. Salaries are usually much higher,
schedules can be an order of magnitude longer, nothing happens without
firm specifications, and all that sort of thing. Unless you're big
enough to hive off a division that can be hermetically sealed off from
your other business it's a one-way street. It may be fine for a
consultant, but it can easily be fatal for a smaller company that has
to finance themselves over the very long lead times before revenue
starts to appear.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:40:35 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:07:39 -0500, "krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I have *no* interest in living with the crap you have to put up with. I'd
rather design stuff than jump through government hoops for a living.


Second that. Somebody has to design and build life-critical stuff, but
I don't want to. I can probably design five times as many new things
per year if I don't have to conform to *anybody's* standards. And
since designing new things is what I like to do, I avoid standards.

A lot of our products are risky and speculative. We push parts, push
performance, make a couple, and put them on the web site, or loan
protos to customers, and see what happens. We don't need no stinkin'
marketing department! We couldn't do that in a regulated environment.

A couple of our OEM customers do take our stuff through CE and UL as
part of their systems, and we make any changes they require, but the
hasslefactor is low there.

I've had no problems with CE/UL/CSA. As long as the product is well
designed there's usually little to nothing that needs changing.

Once you start to deal extensively with a heavily regulated field it
pretty much seems to make you uncompetitive in fast-moving commercial
or speculative R&D products. Salaries are usually much higher,
schedules can be an order of magnitude longer, nothing happens without
firm specifications, and all that sort of thing. Unless you're big
enough to hive off a division that can be hermetically sealed off from
your other business it's a one-way street. It may be fine for a
consultant, but it can easily be fatal for a smaller company that has
to finance themselves over the very long lead times before revenue
starts to appear.

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP_at_interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:40:35 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:07:39 -0500, "krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

[...]
I have *no* interest in living with the crap you have to put up with. I'd
rather design stuff than jump through government hoops for a living.

Second that. Somebody has to design and build life-critical stuff, but
I don't want to. I can probably design five times as many new things
per year if I don't have to conform to *anybody's* standards. And
since designing new things is what I like to do, I avoid standards.

A lot of our products are risky and speculative. We push parts, push
performance, make a couple, and put them on the web site, or loan
protos to customers, and see what happens. We don't need no stinkin'
marketing department! We couldn't do that in a regulated environment.

A couple of our OEM customers do take our stuff through CE and UL as
part of their systems, and we make any changes they require, but the
hasslefactor is low there.
I've had no problems with CE/UL/CSA. As long as the product is well
designed there's usually little to nothing that needs changing.

Once you start to deal extensively with a heavily regulated field it
pretty much seems to make you uncompetitive in fast-moving commercial
or speculative R&D products. Salaries are usually much higher,
schedules can be an order of magnitude longer, nothing happens without
firm specifications, and all that sort of thing. Unless you're big
enough to hive off a division that can be hermetically sealed off from
your other business it's a one-way street. It may be fine for a
consultant, but it can easily be fatal for a smaller company that has
to finance themselves over the very long lead times before revenue
starts to appear.

There is a corollary to this -

A company that does *not* deal with a heavily regulated field would be
crazy to voluntarily burden themselves with all the processes used in
those fields.

John Devereux wrote:
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP_at_interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:40:35 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:07:39 -0500, "krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

[...]
I have *no* interest in living with the crap you have to put up with. I'd
rather design stuff than jump through government hoops for a living.

Second that. Somebody has to design and build life-critical stuff, but
I don't want to. I can probably design five times as many new things
per year if I don't have to conform to *anybody's* standards. And
since designing new things is what I like to do, I avoid standards.

A lot of our products are risky and speculative. We push parts, push
performance, make a couple, and put them on the web site, or loan
protos to customers, and see what happens. We don't need no stinkin'
marketing department! We couldn't do that in a regulated environment.

A couple of our OEM customers do take our stuff through CE and UL as
part of their systems, and we make any changes they require, but the
hasslefactor is low there.
I've had no problems with CE/UL/CSA. As long as the product is well
designed there's usually little to nothing that needs changing.

Once you start to deal extensively with a heavily regulated field it
pretty much seems to make you uncompetitive in fast-moving commercial
or speculative R&D products. Salaries are usually much higher,
schedules can be an order of magnitude longer, nothing happens without
firm specifications, and all that sort of thing. Unless you're big
enough to hive off a division that can be hermetically sealed off from
your other business it's a one-way street. It may be fine for a
consultant, but it can easily be fatal for a smaller company that has
to finance themselves over the very long lead times before revenue
starts to appear.

There is a corollary to this -

A company that does *not* deal with a heavily regulated field would be
crazy to voluntarily burden themselves with all the processes used in
those fields.


... and if they take everything too loosey goosey would therewith
increase their exposure to lawsuits in the event something happens. Like
this:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/23/minnesota.bridge.settlement/index.html

Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> writes:

John Devereux wrote:
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP_at_interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:40:35 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:07:39 -0500, "krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
[...]
I have *no* interest in living with the crap you have to put up with. I'd
rather design stuff than jump through government hoops for a living.
Second that. Somebody has to design and build life-critical stuff, but
I don't want to. I can probably design five times as many new things
per year if I don't have to conform to *anybody's* standards. And
since designing new things is what I like to do, I avoid standards.

A lot of our products are risky and speculative. We push parts, push
performance, make a couple, and put them on the web site, or loan
protos to customers, and see what happens. We don't need no stinkin'
marketing department! We couldn't do that in a regulated environment.

A couple of our OEM customers do take our stuff through CE and UL as
part of their systems, and we make any changes they require, but the
hasslefactor is low there.
I've had no problems with CE/UL/CSA. As long as the product is well
designed there's usually little to nothing that needs changing.

Once you start to deal extensively with a heavily regulated field it
pretty much seems to make you uncompetitive in fast-moving commercial
or speculative R&D products. Salaries are usually much higher,
schedules can be an order of magnitude longer, nothing happens without
firm specifications, and all that sort of thing. Unless you're big
enough to hive off a division that can be hermetically sealed off from
your other business it's a one-way street. It may be fine for a
consultant, but it can easily be fatal for a smaller company that has
to finance themselves over the very long lead times before revenue
starts to appear.
There is a corollary to this -

A company that does *not* deal with a heavily regulated field would be
crazy to voluntarily burden themselves with all the processes used in
those fields.

... and if they take everything too loosey goosey would therewith
increase their exposure to lawsuits in the event something happens. Like
this:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/23/minnesota.bridge.settlement/index.html

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".

Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> writes:

John Devereux wrote:
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP_at_interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:40:35 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:07:39 -0500, "krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

[...]
I have *no* interest in living with the crap you have to put up with. I'd
rather design stuff than jump through government hoops for a living.

Second that. Somebody has to design and build life-critical stuff, but
I don't want to. I can probably design five times as many new things
per year if I don't have to conform to *anybody's* standards. And
since designing new things is what I like to do, I avoid standards.

A lot of our products are risky and speculative. We push parts, push
performance, make a couple, and put them on the web site, or loan
protos to customers, and see what happens. We don't need no stinkin'
marketing department! We couldn't do that in a regulated environment.

A couple of our OEM customers do take our stuff through CE and UL as
part of their systems, and we make any changes they require, but the
hasslefactor is low there.
I've had no problems with CE/UL/CSA. As long as the product is well
designed there's usually little to nothing that needs changing.

Once you start to deal extensively with a heavily regulated field it
pretty much seems to make you uncompetitive in fast-moving commercial
or speculative R&D products. Salaries are usually much higher,
schedules can be an order of magnitude longer, nothing happens without
firm specifications, and all that sort of thing. Unless you're big
enough to hive off a division that can be hermetically sealed off from
your other business it's a one-way street. It may be fine for a
consultant, but it can easily be fatal for a smaller company that has
to finance themselves over the very long lead times before revenue
starts to appear.

There is a corollary to this -

A company that does *not* deal with a heavily regulated field would be
crazy to voluntarily burden themselves with all the processes used in
those fields.


... and if they take everything too loosey goosey would therewith
increase their exposure to lawsuits in the event something happens. Like
this:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/23/minnesota.bridge.settlement/index.html

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 wrote:
Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> writes:

krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 06:18:54 +0000, John Devereux <john_at_devereux.me.uk> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin_at_highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:


[...]

That's almost exactly what we do. The values on the schematic are
advisory, as there can be multiple BOMs that call out different
stuffing options, or ECOs that change things with varying effectivity.
And we do this too. The purpose of the schematic is a method of design
entry to generate the netlist for the bare board.
Correct. It also conveys an understanding of the board to others but that's
an advisory sort of thing.

So I'll have to ask again because nobody answered that yet:

I assume we all agree that board repair techs, final test, QC and
possibly service personnel all need "understanding conveyed to them by
means of the schematic". Now which schematic will you put into their
hands? An uncontrolled version?

The (one-and-only) version that generated the gerbers. And the parts list.

Most of these operations in our case do not require a schematic. Only
one might be board repair, but maybe not even that these days. A
*printed* schematic does not typically contain enough information in any
case. It is the BOM that specifies the company part number which allows
the part to be looked up or replaced with the correct type etc.


So how do you diagnose a problem in a large radio or a complicated big
SMPS without a schematic? The BOM is not very useful in the diagnostic
phase.