Embedded Systems Conference
Breaking News
Engineering Pop Culture!

When Did Analog Steal Digital's Mojo?

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
sixscrews
User Rank
Author
Why am I not surprised?
sixscrews   5/29/2015 1:20:44 PM
NO RATINGS
We (that is, wetware) are analog devices.  I have been messing with analog circuits and interfaces to the digital demons for 35 years and it's nice to see the blooming of new analog designs.

Much of this is driven, I believe, by the IoT (whatever that is).  Many of the 'Things' are analog - what's in your refrigerator?  how much energy did your house/car/appliances/dog consume yesterday?  how far did you walk and how many calories did you burn (and, perhaps, consume with that stop at the taco wagon)?

Hooray for analog - it's been a long time returning.

ss/wb

CC VanDorne
User Rank
Author
Re: Why am I not surprised?
CC VanDorne   5/29/2015 4:10:44 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm all in too!  My phat raise is coming anytime now, right?

sixscrews
User Rank
Author
Re: Why am I not surprised?
sixscrews   5/30/2015 11:46:55 AM
NO RATINGS
Not so sure about that raise but you might get to play with some nifty new toys - and brush up on your Laplace Transforms (what's 's' mean, Daddy?).

ss/wb

CC VanDorne
User Rank
Author
Re: Why am I not surprised?
CC VanDorne   6/1/2015 9:34:50 AM
NO RATINGS
New toys?  Ha!  One would actually need a capital equipment budget for that.

As for the reminder on Laplace, thanks, although it's been years.  I do remember 's', however. It's a representation of a real and complex number, the latter of which is used to help make the math but serves to confuse the practically minded.

traneus
User Rank
Author
analog circuit analysis without Laplace
traneus   6/12/2015 10:27:28 PM
NO RATINGS
I've been analyzing and designing analog circuits for five decades, and I have never used the Laplace transform. I started by designing and building radios, so I learned to work in the jw frequency domain using the complex impedances of resistors, capacitors, and inductors.

I also learned to analyze starting at the output and working towards the input, to get the reciprocal of the transfer function. At each step of my analysis, I already know everything I need to know to calculate that step. Notch circuits (with zeros in the transfer function) would be an exception.

Crusty1
User Rank
Author
Re: Why am I not surprised?
Crusty1   6/13/2015 5:39:45 AM
NO RATINGS
I cut my teeth on analogue computing (40 years ago).

I designed and built a smoke stack (chimney) precipitation fall out computer using 741 OP_Amps and a host of 10 turn dial pots and a couple of analogue meters. No complicated A to D and no software with any hidden bugs. Other than decide on the type of circuit and the resistors required minimal design required.

Today I would do the same approach and only turn the output into a character output at the last stage.

 

 

Tupak
User Rank
Author
Re: analog circuit analysis without Laplace
Tupak   6/14/2015 6:09:54 AM
NO RATINGS
Every time you use a complex impedence you are indirectly using the Laplace transform (or some similar integral transform) even without noticing. This is the beauty of it. 

traneus
User Rank
Author
Re: analog circuit analysis without Laplace
traneus   6/14/2015 11:42:45 AM
NO RATINGS
Tupak, you are correct: Indirectly using an integral transform is the beauty of it. The Laplace and Fourier transforms are closely related. My work has been mostly in narrowband bandpass circuits, for which I found the Fourier-transform complex impedances to be most appropriate.

Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week