Sim programs are definitely a mixed blessing. If you already pretty much know what you are doing they can be quite helpful --- but they do induce a certain mental laziness if you are not vigilant.
If you find yourself running to the computer to determine the values of a resistive divider, you're in trouble.
Bill L surely knows Bob Pease well and these stories are why Pease says SPICE will LIE to you.
He always cautions the simplicity of simulation and the need for careful attention to layout, Kirchoff's laws and star earthing etc etc.
He has ample examples in his columns in Electronic Design mag.
What I find interesting: as hardware for the symbol domain (I borrow Bruno Putzeys' terminology) gets faster, digital hardware engineers are being forced to learn "analog" techniques --- note the popularity of Howard Johnson's material for example.
One thing to bear in mind: a four-year curriculum in anything is a bare starting point for any but the most brilliant, dedicated, and thoughtful of us. Yet remaining in school continuously and acquiring more degrees can result in a narrow perspective, knowing more and more about less and less. There has to be a balance, and yet one must avoid the trap of starting to make a living outside of school and losing the motivation to keep learning, exchanging it for the safety and security of paychecks and benefits.
And of course analog is real engineering, and needs to be a lifelong learning experience if one expects to get any good at it. At least with digital one can become of some use in the marketplace in a relatively short time, which has much to do with digital's popularity.
"Anyone using an autorouter and tying analog and digital supplies together directly in their schematic is an idiot and should ask their bosses why they have a job, and why people that know better do not.
Better yet, why did the supervisor not catch this, since an engineeringn supervisor is supposed to be more competent than those that report to them?
Your support of such an idiotic organization should be refused, since all indications are that the company has FAIL written all over it and that you are wasting your time."
Geez, ease up. They don't do a good job of teaching this stuff in schools and many digital designers are forced to concentrate on other than analog aspects, leaving many with not much experience in dealing with this kind of stuff.People that do know it are scarce in many companies these days. In a lot of places the management aren't always experienced with a lot of design aspects. Its not good but that's the way it is.
Just read the rest of the article. The dipstick designing for under hood obviously had never checked the oil themselves in their Tata.
Also, ground bounce in those resistors, especially in a part of the circuit with supposedly good CMRR? Really? Must only be on Maxim parts.
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.