Comments on: Designing For The Long Term http://chrisgammell.com/2008/12/19/designing-for-the-long-term/ Analog electronics and everything else between 1 and 0 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:00:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Is There Room For The Electronics Industry In A Sustainable World? | Chris Gammell's Analog Life http://chrisgammell.com/2008/12/19/designing-for-the-long-term/comment-page-1/#comment-1461 Is There Room For The Electronics Industry In A Sustainable World? | Chris Gammell's Analog Life Sun, 16 May 2010 20:25:39 +0000 http://chrisgammell.com/?p=715#comment-1461 [...] both the amount of turnover in the products that people consume year to year and the fact that very few products are designed for long term use, almost all electronics are bound for a landfill within a 10 year time frame (unless recycled). All [...] [...] both the amount of turnover in the products that people consume year to year and the fact that very few products are designed for long term use, almost all electronics are bound for a landfill within a 10 year time frame (unless recycled). All [...]

]]> By: When To Use Analog Vs. Digital | Chris Gammell's Analog Life http://chrisgammell.com/2008/12/19/designing-for-the-long-term/comment-page-1/#comment-925 When To Use Analog Vs. Digital | Chris Gammell's Analog Life Wed, 20 May 2009 01:02:26 +0000 http://chrisgammell.com/?p=715#comment-925 [...] there is also reconfigurability, either through logic rework (FPGAs) or coding (in DSP chips), so long term investment usually will favor DSP over analog RF solutions. Finally, there is more efficient use of bandwidth [...] [...] there is also reconfigurability, either through logic rework (FPGAs) or coding (in DSP chips), so long term investment usually will favor DSP over analog RF solutions. Finally, there is more efficient use of bandwidth [...]

]]> By: What The World Needs, Part 1 | Chris Gammell's Analog Life http://chrisgammell.com/2008/12/19/designing-for-the-long-term/comment-page-1/#comment-722 What The World Needs, Part 1 | Chris Gammell's Analog Life Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:18:27 +0000 http://chrisgammell.com/?p=715#comment-722 [...] What we have right now just isn’t going to work. Batteries aren’t reliable enough over the long term, ultracapacitors aren’t developed enough and large scale solutions just aren’t [...] [...] What we have right now just isn’t going to work. Batteries aren’t reliable enough over the long term, ultracapacitors aren’t developed enough and large scale solutions just aren’t [...]

]]> By: Nate http://chrisgammell.com/2008/12/19/designing-for-the-long-term/comment-page-1/#comment-587 Nate Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:41:09 +0000 http://chrisgammell.com/?p=715#comment-587 Longevity is a funny thing, and I think using cell phones as an example is meaningful. Cell phone contracts typically last 2 years, and afterwards, they give you a good deal on a new phone. If a company offered to sell you a phone for twice as much that lasted 5 years, nobody would buy it because they know they can get a new phone in 2 years and it will have all the newest technology in it. In a similar vein, I have something to say about military and space electronics. I have some experience with both, and one reason military and space stuff is still working after many years is because it was something designed into the product. I think it's entirely possible to build a cell phone that will last 15 years, but nobody wants it or is willing to pay for it (see above). In the military, they have very rigid control over new versions and updates and things that impact compatibility. As for the "humongous budgets" that military contracting entails, those budgets pay for the ruggedization and longevity engineering that goes into them. Then once they are designed, the military is the only available customer, so the cost is only spread over a small number of units. Personally, I have seen some devices that were produced in a batch of about a dozen, so the unit price worked out to something in the 5 figure range, for a product that would probably sell for around $200 if you got it off the shelf at Best Buy. If you want to see a truly humongous budget, go check out apple. I don't know how much money they have spent on R&D for iPod products, but I'm sure their profit margin is colossal. As for space rated electronics, radiation is about the only issue they need to worry about, and rad-hardened chips are fairly well understood these days. They aren't made in great quantities, but they are out there. In space there is no soup to drop your space probe into, nor is there moisture, 8-yr olds to play with them, or even much heat to harm connections. Most of them spend their time orbiting Earth in a pristine environment interrupted only by radiation and solar particles. When engineers sit down to design them, they know the intended lifespan is going to be 10+ years and that there is no chance of repair if something goes wrong (Hubble Telescope excluded). A miracle of longevity in electronics though, are the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. They were designed for something like a 90 day mission, and they are still going! In the meantime, it appears that the Phoenix lander has completed its mission with a couple extensions, and is just a part of the martain landscape now. The scientific return on the mars rovers has been more than anyone dreamed, and hats off to their designers. Longevity is a funny thing, and I think using cell phones as an example is meaningful. Cell phone contracts typically last 2 years, and afterwards, they give you a good deal on a new phone. If a company offered to sell you a phone for twice as much that lasted 5 years, nobody would buy it because they know they can get a new phone in 2 years and it will have all the newest technology in it.

In a similar vein, I have something to say about military and space electronics. I have some experience with both, and one reason military and space stuff is still working after many years is because it was something designed into the product. I think it’s entirely possible to build a cell phone that will last 15 years, but nobody wants it or is willing to pay for it (see above). In the military, they have very rigid control over new versions and updates and things that impact compatibility. As for the “humongous budgets” that military contracting entails, those budgets pay for the ruggedization and longevity engineering that goes into them. Then once they are designed, the military is the only available customer, so the cost is only spread over a small number of units. Personally, I have seen some devices that were produced in a batch of about a dozen, so the unit price worked out to something in the 5 figure range, for a product that would probably sell for around $200 if you got it off the shelf at Best Buy. If you want to see a truly humongous budget, go check out apple. I don’t know how much money they have spent on R&D for iPod products, but I’m sure their profit margin is colossal.

As for space rated electronics, radiation is about the only issue they need to worry about, and rad-hardened chips are fairly well understood these days. They aren’t made in great quantities, but they are out there. In space there is no soup to drop your space probe into, nor is there moisture, 8-yr olds to play with them, or even much heat to harm connections. Most of them spend their time orbiting Earth in a pristine environment interrupted only by radiation and solar particles. When engineers sit down to design them, they know the intended lifespan is going to be 10+ years and that there is no chance of repair if something goes wrong (Hubble Telescope excluded). A miracle of longevity in electronics though, are the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. They were designed for something like a 90 day mission, and they are still going! In the meantime, it appears that the Phoenix lander has completed its mission with a couple extensions, and is just a part of the martain landscape now. The scientific return on the mars rovers has been more than anyone dreamed, and hats off to their designers.

]]>