John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:13:21 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.
I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).

For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder
to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap
amp A with amp C and stuff like that.

[...]
A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

Well, yes, I was just wondering about whether Nico really always draws
the physical package. Looks like he doesn't for smaller stuff.

With 1738 pins you can only hope that the FPGA has enough routing
resources. That used to be a major pain in the early 90's. Don't know
about nowadays since other guys design the parts with the big FPGAs. And
I am glad I don't have to deal with BGA, at least not with large ones ...

The biggest ones we use are Sparten 3's with 456 balls on 1 mm
centers. We haven't had any routing problems so far, doing pretty
complex stuff at 128 MHz clock rates. Our in-house BGA soldering
yield, to date, is exactly 100%. BGAs seem to be a lot easier to
solder reliably than fine-pitch leaded parts. Easier to inspect, too,
since you can't inspect them at all.


The latter is a concern in my field (medical). We need to be able to
inspect. The other concern is involuntary board flexing. Most of my
designs have to sustain under tortures such as freighter pilots
ploughing through a storm in the Carribean in airplanes as old as a DC-3
or a trucker in Africa who is lead-footing it over a few hundred miles
of washboard road.

X-Rays?

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:33:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!


That will only happen if Bloggs designs it. :(

Bloggs has several times stated that he doesn't design electronics. He
hasn't stated what he actually does.

He stated that he does absolutely nothing. It might be the only time
he has ever told the truth.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:10:04 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:33:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!


That will only happen if Bloggs designs it. :(

Bloggs has several times stated that he doesn't design electronics. He
hasn't stated what he actually does.



He stated that he does absolutely nothing. It might be the only time
he has ever told the truth.

Sounds boring. No wonder he's usually bummed.

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:10:04 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:33:16 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

That will only happen if Bloggs designs it. :(

Bloggs has several times stated that he doesn't design electronics. He
hasn't stated what he actually does.

He stated that he does absolutely nothing. It might be the only time
he has ever told the truth.

Sounds boring. No wonder he's usually bummed.

No reason to live if you have nothing to do. :(

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

John Larkin wrote:

No reason to live if you have nothing to do. :(

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

In article <6PQOj.21063$%41.8783@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net says...
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:13:21 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:17:44 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Nico Coesel wrote:
Dave <dhschetz@gmail.com> wrote:

Does anybody out there have a good methodology for determining your
optimal FPGA pinouts, for making PCB layouts nice, pretty, and clean?
The brute force method is fairly maddening. I'd be curious to hear if
anybody has any 'tricks of the trade' here.
I start thinking about how the PCB should be routed the minute I start
to draw a schematic. I always draw components with their actual
pin-outs. This helps to group pins together and it helps to
troubleshoot the circuit when the prototype is on your bench (no need
to lookup the pinouts because they are in your diagram).

For quad opamps like the LM324 as well? That can make a schematic harder
to read and will also cause a nightmare if the layouter wants to swap
amp A with amp C and stuff like that.

[...]
A quad opamp doesn't have 1738 pins!

Well, yes, I was just wondering about whether Nico really always draws
the physical package. Looks like he doesn't for smaller stuff.

With 1738 pins you can only hope that the FPGA has enough routing
resources. That used to be a major pain in the early 90's. Don't know
about nowadays since other guys design the parts with the big FPGAs. And
I am glad I don't have to deal with BGA, at least not with large ones ...
The biggest ones we use are Sparten 3's with 456 balls on 1 mm
centers. We haven't had any routing problems so far, doing pretty
complex stuff at 128 MHz clock rates. Our in-house BGA soldering
yield, to date, is exactly 100%. BGAs seem to be a lot easier to
solder reliably than fine-pitch leaded parts. Easier to inspect, too,
since you can't inspect them at all.

The latter is a concern in my field (medical). We need to be able to
inspect. The other concern is involuntary board flexing. Most of my
designs have to sustain under tortures such as freighter pilots
ploughing through a storm in the Carribean in airplanes as old as a DC-3
or a trucker in Africa who is lead-footing it over a few hundred miles
of washboard road.

X-Rays?

your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

I used to use a newsreader with the servers at RCN. But I can't get
the reader to find the servers anymore. Actually, it seems to be an
account validation thing and dealing with RCN support is such a pain
that I am willing to put up with the SPAM until it becomes
unbearable. When that happens I will do without newsgroups. A lot of
the important stuff is handled in highly targeted forums anyway. I
mainly come here to see what others are doing and having problems with
and to ask an occasional question. I seem to recall that a question I
asked a month or so ago resulted in a lot of crap being thrown
around. That is almost as bad as the SPAM and no ISP can filter it!

On Apr 21, 3:24 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

No reason to live if you have nothing to do. :(

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

What is the point of including a link to the "improve usenet" page? I
don't see any useful information there. The page complains about a
few things and offers no advice on what to do about any of it...
counter to its stated purpose of being "an attempt to make Usenet
participation a better experience for those who are clued as to what
the Usenet medium is and how to use it". Instead of offering anything
constructive, they even insult people that they should be trying to
reach and convince... "most of the people who post to Usenet via the
clunky Google Groups web interface are lusers or lamers".

Do you think that this page has had any sort of positive influence on
usenet? Does your posting the link help in any way?

Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those days
are long gone.

A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old.

Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of service?
IMHO that's wrong.

Easier to inspect, too,
since you can't inspect them at all.

Hi Joerg,

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:PLsOj.7522$GE1.332@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those days
are long gone.

Actually I think a very significant fraction of companies (at least those
hiring EEs) offer some sort of contribution to 401k plans, sometimes profit
sharing, sometimes stock options, etc... but I concur that the old days of
"company pensions" is pretty much gone.

A 70 year old programmer can be better than a 40 year old.

Absolutely, but if you're an employer it's definitely a legitimate
consideration that starting a bunch of 70-year-olds on a, say, decade-long
"modernization" project is rather riskier than if you toss a few 50- or
30-year-olds into the mix as well. :-)

Anyhow, why should retirement checks be based on the last year of service?
IMHO that's wrong.

I agree that one year seems too short, but trying to figure out how many years
should be taken into consideration (which is effectively what happens in
private companies if the company is contributing to your 401k) is not going to
be easy either.

Mostly it's a mere pittance. And that's ok, I am a strong believer that
everyone should pull their own weight.

True. However, we should embrace the Japanese concept of letting older folks
teach the young ones, not lay them off.

Just make it the same as with 401(k), IRA, old style pension funds, social
security etc. What counts is what you pay in over your whole career.

Guess who gets to pay the tab for the agency's legal defense?

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:coen041brmqf342022figkpv9ogjol2h0i@4ax.com...
Easier to inspect, too,
since you can't inspect them at all.

I'm sure you know this, but plenty of places will X-ray BGAs to "inspect"
them.

Joel Koltner wrote:
Hi Joerg,

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:PLsOj.7522$GE1.332@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those days
are long gone.

Actually I think a very significant fraction of companies (at least those
hiring EEs) offer some sort of contribution to 401k plans, sometimes profit
sharing, sometimes stock options, etc... but I concur that the old days of
"company pensions" is pretty much gone.


Mostly it's a mere pittance. And that's ok, I am a strong believer that
everyone should pull their own weight. Except disabled people, of course.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:56:41 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Joel Koltner wrote:
Hi Joerg,

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:PLsOj.7522$GE1.332@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Private companies generally offer zilch in retirement benefits. Those days
are long gone.
Actually I think a very significant fraction of companies (at least those
hiring EEs) offer some sort of contribution to 401k plans, sometimes profit
sharing, sometimes stock options, etc... but I concur that the old days of
"company pensions" is pretty much gone.

Mostly it's a mere pittance. And that's ok, I am a strong believer that
everyone should pull their own weight. Except disabled people, of course.

My company contributes 15% of employee salaries (including bonuses) to
their 401K. It's tax deductable to the company, not taxable to the
employees, and makes everybody happy. That's what really matters,
after all.

But it's not a pension, in that the company has no obligations at all.