Open side-bar Menu
 What's PR got to do with it?

Posts Tagged ‘Lee Public Relations’

What is in-situ de-embedding?

Thursday, January 14th, 2016

As a follow up to Chris Scholz’s predictions on 2016 signal integrity trends, we checked in with in-situ de-embedding inventor Dr. Ching-Chao Huang, who gives us a more detailed look at how engineers will need to handle signal integrity measurement and calibration for high-speed boards.

huangEd:  When and why did you invent in-situ de-embedding?

Ching-Chao:  We first coined the term “In-Situ De-embedding” (or ISD) for the de-embedding software we launched in 2011.  It was a new approach to remove the non-causality artifact commonly found in other de-embedding methods.

Ed:  What was the problem you saw coming?

Ching-Chao:  Accurate de-embedding is crucial to characterize the electrical performance of a component, from chip to package, PCB, connector and cable.  A Vector Network Analyzer (VNA) is perhaps the best equipment to use for characterization because it measures the detailed electrical behavior of a component at every frequency.  However, a component, or device under test (DUT), does not usually lend itself to direct measurement and needs to be mounted on a fixture for connection to the VNA.  The effect of the fixture needs to be removed (i.e., de-embedded) in order to get the true electrical behavior of the DUT itself.

Ed:  So how did the electrical behavior get measured before?

Ching-Chao:  The traditional approach is to fabricate and measure test coupons that resemble the fixture’s lead-ins and/or lead-outs.  Information is extracted from the test coupons and de-embedded from the fixture + DUT measurement data.  To collect more information, the TRL (thru-reflect-line) calibration method requires that multiple test coupons be built.  This method takes up a fair amount of board space.

(more…)

Thru-reflect line vs. in-situ de-embedding

Monday, January 11th, 2016
Chris Scholz

Chris Scholz

Today we wrap up our interview with Chris Scholz, Product Manager, Vector Network Analyzers, R&S North America, discussing the different approaches to Signal Integrity.

Ed:  It’d be great if you could give us a brief comparison on approaches you’ve dealt with.

Chris:  Sure! Signal Integrity applications use baseband data with bandwidth up to 10s of GHz impedance, matching of DUTs in Signal Integrity applications is relatively poor. Looking at TRL-based calibration techniques that have been automated by some vendors, these techniques generally fail to provide accurate results beyond a few GHz.

Ed:  What’s TRL?

Chris:  Thru-reflect line.

For our customers, in-situ de-embedding (ISD) has shown to be the most accurate de-embedding technique available to date. One of the nice side effects of ISD is that it results in causal measurements what are beneficial for further processing standard design tools.

Because the Signal Integrity engineers deal with baseband signals, they face a set of unique challenges that are marginally important for RF engineers. For wireless systems, transmission channels are narrow band and separated from each other.

By contrast, Signal Integrity deals with baseband signals. This means that signals experience impairments that span from close to DC to the maximum frequency that the channel supports. This also means that digital signals are prone to picking up low frequency impairments such as power supply noise, they are prone to frequency dependent loss at high frequencies and they pick up broadband impairments such as various types of crosstalk.

(more…)

What tools will SI Engineers need in 2016?

Thursday, January 7th, 2016
Chris Scholz

Chris Scholz

Today’s excerpt with Chris Scholz, Product Manager, Vector Network Analyzers, R&S North America, focuses on the SI tools that engineers will need to meet the SI challenge in 2016. 

Ed:  What tools do you see engineers using and how well do they handle this oncoming SI challenge?

Chris:  Vector Network Analyzers have the reputation of being complicated and were considered a specialist tool for ultra-precise measurements and for calibration labs.   This SI tool technology has changed, for the better.

Today’s modern computing technology and graphic user interfaces arm any lab technician (with minimal training) to produce reliable and trustworthy VNA measurements. So with modern VNAs, you get the best of both worlds: precise measurements to a well-defined reference plane and ease of use of a modern test tool.

This is of special interest for SI applications where test strategies are traditionally centered around time-domain measurements such as eye diagrams, jitter margins, equalizers and time-domain reflectometry. Today’s VNAs can perform all these measurements and the results tend to be more accurate and repeatable than with traditional tools.

(more…)

High speed designs require new ways to handle Signal Integrity

Monday, January 4th, 2016
Chris Scholz

Chris Scholz

 

 

We recently had a chance to sit down with Chris Scholz, Product Manager, Vector Network Analyzers, R&S North America at German electronic equipment manufacturer Rohde & Schwarz. For those of us who aren’t familiar with Rohde & Schwarz, it’s a worldwide electronics group company with business fields in test and measurement, broadcast and media, secure communications, cybersecurity and radio monitoring/radio location. Based in Munich, R&S was founded in 1933 and has had a U.S. presence for years.

We got together with Chris to hear what was the big design issue his engineers were encountering as 2016 approached. Here’s what he had to say.
……………………………………………

Today’s excerpt gives us some background on Rohde & Schwarz and Signal Integrity. 

 

Ed:   Chris, before we get into the heart of our discussion, it might be good to give us a brief rundown on who Rohde & Schwarz is.

Chris:   Sure, Ed.   Rohde & Schwarz is primarily known for our leadership in RF, microwave and millimeterwave technology. We were founded in 1933 and are based in Munich.  We have close to 10,000 employees.
(more…)

Design rules built on quicksand?

Wednesday, May 27th, 2015

 

Sage CEO Coby Zelnik recently talked with us about how design rules need a formal methodology to account for all the permutations of each rule for today’s and the next generation’s chip designs.

What I found alarming was that he noted how design rules are being built today.   An engineer writes the rule based on…well, based on…um…gut feel?    The point is that the design rule creation process currently has no specification to govern the creation of the design rule.

(more…)

What was he thinking?

Monday, October 27th, 2014

More like, WTF?  Clueless…

Is high tech really this bad?

Click here to find out.

What do you think?

Jim Hogan and Bernard Murphy on IoT Security: How the human body’s defense mechanism may be the model for repelling attacks on the IoT

Thursday, October 16th, 2014

 

_MG_7133-no-halo (2)_medium

BernardMurphy_pic_cropped

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This article by Atrenta’s CTO Bernard Murphy and investor Jim Hogan has attracted a lot of interest.

Murphy and Hogan say that we can draw inspiration from biology on how to design the IoT fortress: specifically, how the human body wards off attacks from bacteria, viruses, other bad and harmful stuff.

And they describe in detail the concept on how electronic engineers can plan to do so.

It’s an intriguing piece  that gives electronic designers a first huge step on how to secure the IoT and keep those of us who are IoT-interconnected – Borg Collective like – protected from the inevitable cyber attacks.

Biology, Deceit & Security in the Internet of Things

What do you think?

 

What is the EDA Editorial Brain Trust Today?

Monday, August 25th, 2014

 

The EDA editorial brain trust today is the topic of our continuing conversation with Richard Goering and Brian Fuller.  

 

Brian Fuller

Brian Fuller

Richard Goering

Richard Goering

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ED:  What is the EDA editorial brain trust these days?

RICHARD: Not sure how you’re defining “brain trust,” but if there is one, it’s with the vendors and the independent on-line publications.

ED:  Who makes up the EDA editorial brain trust?

RICHARD:  If you add it all up, there are still a number of editors with deep EDA and semiconductor experience – they’re just no longer with print publications.

Additionally, there are now a number of writers and bloggers who didn’t start as journalists but who turned in that direction during the transition away from print.

(more…)

The Golden Age of EDA Editorial

Sunday, August 17th, 2014

 

There once was a golden age for EDA editorial.   Seems funny to say nowadays, when we see EDA editorial in a virtual shambles…where one or two publications gamely soldier on as pure play editorial ventures…while others have adopted various sponsorship business models, thereby incurring the snide, not-accurate accusation of being pay-for-play vehicles.

Among the handful of first-tier publications back around the turn of the century, EE Times clearly was the go-to book for EDA.   Staffed by a corps of editors who brought their sharp, keen-edged industry knowledge to their reporting, no EDA startup thought they launched themselves successfully without being covered in EE Times.   And the formula worked for quite a while.  I still remember how those 240 page tomes came to the mailbox each week.

There were two people who figured prominently in the EE Times braintrust.

Brian Fuller, as editor-in-chief, oversaw and created much of what was successful for the various sections that covered all of electronic design.   And there was Richard Goering, the longtime EDA editor with his imposing manner, startling industry knowledge and contacts.   Richard was perhaps best known for refusing to allow canned presentations during interviews.  He’d ask for material before the interview, then start off the interview with those famous words, “I’ve looked over your material and have a few questions,” and run the 30 -45 minute interview.  It was a little like Steve Jobs saying, “Oh, and one more thing.”

EDA editorial has changed, needless to say.  Fortunately, we have Fuller and Goering here to talk a little about what EDA editorial used to be, what it is today, and what we can look toward in the future.   We’ll post their thoughts over the next several weeks, usually on a Monday.

I can’t think of any individuals more qualified to speak cogently on this subject.

 

Brian Fuller

Brian Fuller

Richard Goering

Richard Goering

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ED:   Brian, Richard, thanks for taking time to reminisce a little and to analyze and speculate about where we’re at now.  So let me kick it off with this question:

What’s happened to electronic design editorial and where is it today?

BRIAN:  Ed, to your question what’s happened to electronic design editorial is pretty simple: it’s still there…it’s just in a different place.

ED:   I keep referring to a golden age for EDA editorial.  There was one, wasn’t there?

BRIAN:  Yes, there was!  Think back 20 years ago and you had at least three major publications with EDA editors of one type or another: EDN, Electronic Design, EE Times, Electronic News (not to mention overseas publications).

ED:  There also was Computer Design, the first publication covering EDA to bite the dust.

BRIAN:    That’s right!

ED:  But I interrupted you…

BRIAN:  EE Times, of which I am most familiar, had 2.5 editors at one point covering the design automation industry from the technology and business standpoint.

ED:  So what happened?

BRIAN:  Well, we all know the backstory since then: In 2001, the dot-com bubble burst. Semiconductor and EDA companies shifted marketing dollars to their own site development and to those publications they thought could deliver more eyeballs.

ED:   What about the notion that EDA vendors never bought sufficient advertising and therefore killed their own editorial?

BRIAN: It wasn’t just with EDA, but I think EDA started the ball rolling, and they were big advertisers so the impact was significant.   Electronics publications had to prioritize areas that they were going to cover. Paul Miller, then CEO of UBM Electronics, said pretty bluntly “EDA marketers: If you’re not going to support us, we can’t invest in editors.”

That was the end of Mike Santarini at EE Times; just a few years later it was the end of Richard Goering, now my colleague at Cadence.

RICHARD: Well, not really the “end” of Mike or myself; Mike went to Xilinx, and I’m now at Cadence. But I do agree with Brian that a lack of advertising revenues ended my career at EE Times.

ED:  So what do we have today?

RICHARD:  Not much is left in print.  EE Times, EDN and Electronic Design still exist on-line, but in more of a blog format than traditional journalism. Their EDA coverage is limited.

BRIAN:  Richard’s right. There isn’t an EDA “press corps” in the old definition of the term. The electronics publishing industry has restructured itself into smaller, more specialized sites with much lower overhead than the traditional electronics publishing houses, and they are quite healthy. Editors do cover EDA from various angles, but they also cover lithography and foundry and SoC design and so on.

These are outfits like SemiWiki, EE Journal and its sister publications, Semiconductor Engineering, Chip Design Magazineand so on.

Over this same period, those companies that shifted their marketing dollars away from third-party publishers to build out their own sites, realized they needed content experts, because that¹s never been their strength. So, as more editors have been turned out onto the streets from third-party publishing, industry companies have eagerly snapped them up to build content.

Right now, we have a very interesting mixture of editors working together from two sides of the aisle, if you will, to create technology conversations.

……………………..

 

So what is the EDA editorial braintrust these days?  See what Richard and Brian have to say about it in our next blog. 

 

 

 

 

The IoT – One size does not fit all

Friday, August 1st, 2014

 

Simon Bloch of Samsung, speaks out from the audience on the IoT, posing some interesting questions for all.

SimonBloch_400_cropped_smallerBloch:  I don’t think that there’s a one-size-fits-all IoT.  There’s going to be segmentation.  And if we end up in technology segmentation it’s going to be in low power, low latency and high bandwidths.  They are going to be applicable to different areas.  But it appears to me that technology segmentation is going to be driven by software, and not necessarily by hardware.

Perhaps one of the better examples is what Apple did just this week (editor’s note: week of June 2, 2014) by connecting two IoT devices –  two operating systems talking to each other.

So there might be multiple technologies or different IOSs for different IoTs. There might be an opportunity in connecting them to a management layer that talks to one another, like in the areas of apps.

So, is there an opportunity for EDA companies?  What is that activity and what is the opportunity to complement the classical EDA?

(more…)

CST Webinar Series



Internet Business Systems © 2016 Internet Business Systems, Inc.
595 Millich Dr., Suite 216, Campbell, CA 95008
+1 (408)-337-6870 — Contact Us, or visit our other sites:
TechJobsCafe - Technical Jobs and Resumes EDACafe - Electronic Design Automation GISCafe - Geographical Information Services  MCADCafe - Mechanical Design and Engineering ShareCG - Share Computer Graphic (CG) Animation, 3D Art and 3D Models
  Privacy Policy