Sunday, November 23, 2014

What comes after accelerators

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about my penchant for storing away articles I come across.  I've also talked many times about my continued interest (here or there, for example) in high energy physics.  It's been two decades since I left grad school, but I still have to credit my background in particle physics for my test engineering career.

A few days ago I came across a piece I had stored away from back in July about what might come after accelerators.  The author, Dr. Victor Stenger, pointed out that while ever more powerful accelerators may not be on anyone's radar right now, there are numerous other tests to expand our knowledge of the universe.

So I then looked up Dr. Stenger and found out he died back in August.  Depressing, but it looked like he lived a good life.  So I downloaded his last book God and the Multiverse and started reading it.  I'm only a chapter or so into it, but it's fascinating.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Black Friday flashback

I know Black Friday is still two weeks away, but can you imagine getting this as a Christmas present back in the day?

Interestingly enough, back in 2009 one of these sold for $4150 on eBay.

The geekiest part for me is the cloud chamber.  I remember reading about Wilson's work and playing with simplified cloud chambers back in undergrad.    Cool.


Sunday, November 9, 2014

Reasons to test

I tend to be a packrat for interesting articles.  I'll come across something interesting, open the page, and then move on.  Consequently, I'll pile up 20, 30 or more open links on Chrome for iPad until I finally break down and binge read.

Today is a lazy Sunday morning, so I binged.  One of those stored links dated to way back in July about reasons to test.  It's a nice little summary of four canonical test types.  However, it missed at least two test reasons that are specific to volume manufacturing: binning and SPC.

Suppose your company makes thousands of widgets that have variations in a key parameter.  You therefore have two choices: spend time and money reducing that variation to acceptable limits, or find customers that desire those variations.  If you opt for the second one you spend time and money to implement the testing for that parameter, and you use the test results to put the parts into different categories for different customers.  That's binning.

I'm not going to try to describe statistical process control (SPC).  I've taken a couple of small courses in in it, and I've applied it to manufacturing testing at a couple of different companies.  But I'm no expert.  Go here for a good summary, and follow the external references for more detail.  All I will say is:

  1. SPC is a requirement for high volume manufacturing.  
  2. You need lots of data for SPC.
  3. You have to test to get that data.

So why did the article's author leave out these items?  I can think of three reasons.  First, maybe he thought they fell under the verification or validation categories.  I could maybe buy the verification for SPC argument, but that's as far as I would go.  Second, his testing experience is in low-volume industries (i.e. - certain military markets) where SPC or binning isn't useful.  Third, he just wrote the article quickly to meet a deadline without thinking it through.

That last reason is a little harsh.  But this lazy Sunday morning is also kind of cold and overcast, so I'm a little morose.


(the internets love cats)

Monday, November 3, 2014

Matlab improvements

I went to a Matlab seminar a couple of weeks ago,  Actually, I thought that I would mostly hear about RF and microwave testing using Keysight (the company formerly known as Agilent) test equipment.  I knew they would throw in a little Matlab, especially since Keysight and MathWorks have becomes  BFFs (here or there).

I realized early in the day that it was shaping up to be a majority Matlab experience.  So I decided to roll with it and listen - besides which, I also scored a coffee mug.

Displaying 20141103_094533.jpg

My experience with mathematical software like Matlab is complicated.  Back in grad school I test drove  an early version of Maple, and I used MathCad to make some nifty models for my thesis.  But in the working world Matlab and Labview tend to conflict more than complement - google Matlab versus Labview to see what I mean.

I had used Matlab at several different companies the past decade and viewed it as a great tool if you're a researcher trying to put something together.  But when you have to get something to test shippable product, go with the more professional Labview.

That opinion was shaken up a bit with what I saw in the seminar.  The last version I used was Matlab 2007.  The latest version (2014) has quite a few new tools.  I'm not going to make this a Matlab commercial, but here's what caught my eye:
  • Better debug support
  • Source code control
  • More tools fork converting what you just did into m-script or functions.
  • OOP support
  • Data highlighting tools
Of course, none of this means that I'll drop Labview and migrate to Matlab.  But the experience was an eye-opener...







Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Yet more salary surveys

Every so often I like to look at salary surveys.  On average I have changed jobs about every two years over the past two decades.  So surveys come in handy.  Here's a couple that I came across recently.
This is a pretty good survey from a respected name in software.  Not really my cup of tea, but I program often enough to find it interesting.

Design News 2014 Salaries for 10 Engineering Disciplines
I check Design News a few times a week.  Usually they post/repost interesting items.  But this survey is really more of a overview of salary ranges.  There's no commentary about regions of the country, years of experience, etc.  I suppose it might be useful if you were a parent talking to your kid about how much they might make as a n engineer.  I'm in that situation for at least the next few years, so that's why I looked at it.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Yet another company

A dozen years ago the biggest risk of a startup smacked me upside the head: the company ran out of money and closed it's doors.  Since that first experience in the high-tech* startup world, I've worked at a half-dozen or so other such companies.  Over half of them are no longer in existence.

I have accepted that, but I was never happy with it.  This past summer things went downhill with my latest company.  Within a month I had offers from three companies: a temporary contract gig at a mid-sized company, a large fortune 500 type, and another startup.  Sometimes it is good to mix it up, so I decided to ride with the behemoth.  I've been here two months now - we'll see how it goes.


--------------------------------
* My definition of a "high-tech" startup includes actual hardware.  I'm sure a lot of smart people work at companies developing new apps for smartphones, algorithms for web-hosted databases, or some other clever software tool.  But unless it involves some newly-discovered applications of physics/chemistry/biology, it doesn't meet my criteria. That's just my bias.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

PXI work

So I found this link on EDN about PXI systems last year when I was doing some research for a new project.  I was going through old notes this weekend & cleaning up some files when I found it.  I'm not quite sure anymore why I saved it.  Maybe it's because the author mentioned hybrid slots?  I bookmarked the link last year when I was shopping for a PXI chassis for a new test system, but that's as far as memory takes me.

Anyway, I started thinking about PXI-related issues again this past week, and stumbling across this link reminded me of the experience I had selecting the hardware last fall.  After I had determined how the the test system would work, I made a list of all the hardware I needed: DMM, power supply, multiplexer switches, and relays.  It was too much for a cDAQ to handle (as much as I liked the concept), so I started shopping PXI companies.

I priced out what I needed from four different vendors.  At a startup company you try to keep the costs low, so I spent over week justifying the cost for the system.  If the test system would cost $10k or more, I had to show the legwork to minimize that cost.  Of course the expense of someone like me - getting paid what I was paid - digging around to save a grand or less didn't make much sense.  But so it goes.

I ended up buying the PXI gear from NI, and the test system worked.  And the one thing I got out of that week I spent shopping PXI prices?  There wasn't much difference between the vendors.  Originally I tried to shy away from NI since I assumed their stuff would be pricey.  But in the end it was barely more expensive than what I could get from the other three companies.  Learn something new every day, I suppose.