Microelectronics world news

Sweden-based AlixLabs AB (which was spun off from Lund University in 2019) has closed a €15m (~SEK165m) Series A funding round led by long-term investors Navigare Ventures, Industrifonden, and FORWARD.one, and joined by Sweden-based STOAF as well as Global Brain (an independent Japanese venture capital firm that manages strategic funds and invests in semiconductor startups), further strengthening AlixLabs’ international reach and industry partnerships...

Intelligent power and sensing technology firm onsemi of Scottsdale, AZ, USA says that its board of directors has authorized a new share repurchase program of up to $6bn over the next three years, launching on 1 January 2026 after the previous $3bn authorization expires on 31 December. Under the prior authorization, onsemi has repurchased $2.1bn of its common stock over the last three years, in particular spending about 100% of the company’s free cash flow in 2025 for share repurchase...

Mojo Vision Inc of Cupertino, CA, USA — which is developing and commercializing micro-LED display technology for consumer, enterprise and government applications — has appointed Dr Anthony Yu to its advisory board. The firm is applying its micro-LED technology to the development of high-speed optical interconnects for AI infrastructure. The addition of Yu to the board brings decades of silicon photonics leadership experience to support the firm’s product strategy and go-to-market execution...

submitted by /u/Nerfarean [link] [comments]

It may seem at times that there is a divide between the optical/photonic domain and the RF one, with the terahertz zone between them as a demarcation. If you need to make a transition between the photonic and RF words, you use electrooptical devices such as LEDs and photodetectors of various types. Now, all or most optical systems are being used to perform functions in the optical band where electric comments can’t fulfill the needs, even pushing electronic approaches out of the picture.

In recent years, this divide has also been bridged by newer, advanced technologies such as integrated photonics where optical functions such as lasers, waveguides, tunable elements, filters, and splitters are fabricated on an optically friendly substrate such as lithium niobate (LiNbO3). There are even on-chip integrated transceivers and interconnects such as the ones being developed by Ayar Labs. The capabilities of some of these single- or stacked-chip electro-optical devices are very impressive.

However, there is another way in which electronics and optics are working together with a synergistic outcome. The optical frequency comb (OFC), also called optical comb, was originally developed about 25 years ago—for which John Hall and Theodor Hänsch received the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics—to count the cycles from optical atomic clocks and for precision laser-based spectroscopy.

It has since found many other uses, of course, as it offers outstanding phase stability at optical frequencies for tuning or as a local oscillator (LO). Some of the diverse applications include X-ray and attosecond pulse generation, trace gas sensing in the oil and gas industry, tests of fundamental physics with atomic clocks, long-range optical links, calibration of atomic spectrographs, precision time/frequency transfer over fiber and through free space, and precision ranging.

Use of optical components is not limited to the optical-only domain. In the last few years, researchers have devised ways to use the incredible precision of the OFC to generate highly stable RF carriers in the 10-GHz range. Phase jitter in the optical signal is actually reduced as part of the down-conversion process, so the RF local oscillator has better performance than its source comb.

This is not an intuitive down-conversion scheme (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Two semiconductor lasers are injection-locked to chip-based spiral resonators. The optical modes of the spiral resonators are aligned, using temperature control, to the modes of the high-finesse Fabry-Perot (F-P) cavity for Pound–Drever–Hall (PDH) locking (a). A microcomb is generated in a coupled dual-ring resonator and is heterodyned with the two stabilized lasers. The beat notes are mixed to produce an intermediate frequency, fIF, which is phase-locked by feedback to the current supply of the microcomb seed laser (b). A modified uni-traveling carrier (MUTC) photodetector chip is used to convert the microcomb’s optical output to a 20-GHz microwave signal; a MUTC photodetector has response to hundreds of GHz (c). Source: Nature

But this simplified schematic diagram does not reveal the true complexity and sophistication of the approach, which is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Two distributed-feedback (DFB) lasers at 1557.3 and 562.5 nm are self-injection-locked (SIL) to Si3N4 spiral resonators, amplified and locked to the same miniature F-P cavity. A 6-nm broad-frequency comb with an approximately 20 GHz repetition rate is generated in a coupled-ring resonator. The microcomb is seeded by an integrated DFB laser, which is self-injection-locked to the coupled-ring microresonator. The frequency comb passes through a notch filter to suppress the central line and is then amplified to 60 mW total optical power. The frequency comb is split to beat with each of the PDH-locked SIL continuous wave references. Two beat notes are amplified, filtered and then mixed to produce fIF, which is phase-locked to a reference frequency. The feedback for microcomb stabilization is provided to the current supply of the microcomb seed laser. Lastly, part of the generated microcomb is detected in an MUTC detector to extract the low-noise 20-GHz RF signal. Source: Nature

At present, this is not implemented as a single-chip device or even as a system with just a few discrete optical components; many of the needed precision functions are only available on individual substrates. A complete high-performance system takes a rack-sized chassis fitting in a single-height bay.

However, there has been significant progress on putting multiple functional locks into single-chip substrate, so it wouldn’t be surprising to see a monolithic (or nearly so) device within a decade or perhaps just a few years.

What sort of performance can such a system deliver? There are lots of numbers and perspectives to consider, and testing these systems—at these levels of performance—to assess their capabilities is as much of a challenge as fabricating them. It’s the metrology dilemma: how do you test a precision device? And how do you validate the testing arrangement itself?

One test result indicates that for a 10-GHz carrier, the phase noise is −102 dBc/Hz at 100 Hz offset and decreases to −141 dBc/Hz at 10 kHz offset. Another characterization compares this performance to that of other available techniques (Figure 3).

Figure 3 The platforms are all scaled to 10-GHz carrier and categorized based on the integration capability of the microcomb generator and the reference laser source, excluding the interconnecting optical/electrical parts. Filled (blank) squares are based on the optical frequency division (OFD) standalone microcomb approach: 22-GHz silica microcomb (i); 5-GHz Si3N4 microcomb (ii); 10.8-GHz Si3N4 microcomb (iii) ; 22-GHz microcomb (iv); MgF2 microcomb (v); 100-GHz Si3N4 microcomb (vi); 22-GHz fiber-stabilized SiO2 microcomb (vii); MgF2 microcomb (viii); 14-GHz MgF2 microcomb pumped by an ultrastable laser (ix); and 14-GHz microcomb-based transfer oscillator (x). Source: Nature

There are many good online resources available that explain in detail the use of optical combs for RF-carrier generation. Among these are “Photonic chip-based low-noise microwave oscillator” (Nature); “Compact and ultrastable photonic microwave oscillator” (Optics Letters via ResearchGate); and “Photonic Microwave Sources Divide Noise and Shift Paradigms” (Photonics Spectra).

In some ways, it seems there’s a “frenemy” relationship between today’s advanced photonics and the conventional world of RF-based signal processing. But as has usually been the case, the best technology will win out, and it will borrow from and collaborate with others. Photonics and electronics each have their unique attributes and bring something to the party, while their integrated pairing will undoubtedly enable functions we can’t fully envision—at least not yet.

Bill Schweber is a degreed senior EE who has written three textbooks, hundreds of technical articles, opinion columns, and product features. Prior to becoming an author and editor, he spent his entire hands-on career on the analog side by working on power supplies, sensors, signal conditioning, and wired and wireless communication links. His work experience includes many years at Analog Devices in applications and marketing.

Related Content

• Is Optical Computing in Our Future?
• Use optical fiber as an isolated current sensor?
• Analog Optical Fiber Forges RF-Link Alternative
• Silicon yields phased-arrays for optics, not just RF
• Attosecond laser pulses drive petahertz optical transistor switching

The post Optical combs yield extreme-accuracy gigahertz RF oscillator appeared first on EDN.

submitted by /u/SpecialistRare832 [link] [comments]

STMicroelectronics raises the performance bar for embedded edge AI and industrial applications with the new STM32V8 high-performance microcontrollers (MCUs) for demanding industrial applications such as factory automation, motor control, and robotics. It is the first MCU built on ST’s 18-nm silicon-on-insulator (FD-SOI) process technology with embedded phase-change memory (PCM).

The STM32V8’s phase-change non-volatile memory (PCM) claims the smallest cell size on the market, enabling 4 MB of embedded non-volatile memory (NVM).

(Source: STMicroelectronics)

In addition, the STM32V8 is ST’s fastest STM32 MCU to date, designed for high reliability and harsh environments in embedded and edge AI applications, and can handle complex applications and maintain high energy efficiency. The STM32V8 achieves clock speeds of up to 800 MHz, thanks to the Arm Cortex-M85 core and the 18-nm FD-SOI process with embedded PCM. The FD-SOI technology delivers high energy efficiency and supports a maximum junction temperature of up to 140°C.

The MCU integrates special accelerators, including graphic, crypto/hash, and comes with a large selection of IP, including 1-Gb Ethernet, digital interfaces (FD-CAN, octo/hexa xSPI, I2C, UART/USART, and USB), analog peripherals, and timers. It also features state-of-the-art security with the STM32 Trust framework and the latest cryptographic algorithms and lifecycle management standards. It targets PSA Certified Level 3 and SESIP certification to meet compliance with the upcoming Cyber-Resilience Act (CRA). 

The STM32V8 has been selected for the SpaceX Starlink constellation, using it in a mini laser system that connects the satellites traveling at extremely high speeds in low Earth orbit (LEO), ST said. This is thanks in part to the 18-nm FD-SOI technology that provides a higher level of reliability and robustness.

The STM32V8 supports bare-metal or RTOS-based development. It is supported by ST’s development resources, including STM32Cube software development and turnkey hardware including Discovery kits and Nucleo evaluation boards.

The STM32V8 is in early-stage access for selected customers. Key OEM availability will start in the first quarter of 2026, followed by broader availability.

The post High-performance MCUs target industrial applications appeared first on EDN.

Melexis claims the first automotive-grade surface-mount (SMD) far-infrared (FIR) temperature sensor designed for temperature monitoring of critical components in electric vehicle (EV) powertrain applications. These include inverters, motors, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.

(Source: Melexis)

The MLX90637 offers several advantages over negative temperature coefficient (NTC) thermistors that have traditionally been used in these systems, where speed and accuracy are critical, Melexis said.

These advantages include eliminating the need for manual labor associated with NTC solutions thanks to the SMD packaging, which supports automated PCB assembly and delivers cost savings. In addition, the FIR temperature sensor with non-contact measurement ensures intrinsic galvanic isolation that helps to enhance EV safety by separating high- and low-voltage circuits, while the inherent electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) eliminates typical noise challenges associated with NTC wires, the company said.

Key features include a 50° field of view, 0.02°C resolution, and fast response time, which are suited for applications such as inverter busbar monitoring where temperature must be carefully managed. Sleep current is less than 2.5 μA. and the ambient operating temperature range is -40°C to 125°C.

The MLX90637 also simplifies system integration with a 3.3-V supply, factory calibration (including post calibration), and an I2C interface for communication with a host microcontroller, including a software-definable I2C address via an external pin. The AEC-Q100-qualified sensor is housed in a 3 × 3-mm package.

The post FIR temperature sensor delivers high accuracy appeared first on EDN.

GlobalFoundries of Malta, NY (GF, the only US-based pure-play foundry with a global manufacturing footprint, including facilities in the USA, Europe and Singapore) has announced the acquisition of commercial pure-play specialty silicon photonics foundry Advanced Micro Foundry Pte Ltd (AMF) – a spin-off of the Institute of Microelectronics (IME), a research institute of Singapore’s Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) – marking what is described as a pivotal step in GF’s strategy to advance innovation in silicon photonics. The acquisition will expand GF’s silicon photonics technology portfolio, production capacity and R&D in Singapore, complementing its existing technology capabilities in the USA and unlocking new market opportunities with a broader set of data-center and communication technologies...

Filtronic plc of Sedgefield and Leeds, UK — which designs and manufactures RF and millimeter-wave (mmWave) transmit & receive components and subsystems — has completed a multi-year project to develop novel plastic QFN packaging for gallium nitride (GaN) devices, marking what is described as a significant milestone for UK sovereign capability in advanced semiconductor technology...

I’ve recently published Design Ideas (DIs) showing circuits for linear PWM programming of standard bucking-type regulators in applications requiring an output span that can swing below the regulator’s sense voltage (Vsense or Vs). For example: “Simple PWM interface can program regulators for Vout < Vsense.”

Wow the engineering world with your unique design: Design Ideas Submission Guide

Objections have been raised, however, that such circuits entail a significant loss of programming analog accuracy because they rely on adding a voltage term typically derived from an available voltage (e.g., logic rail) source. Therefore, they should be avoided.

The argument relies on the fact that such sources generally have accuracy and stability that are significantly worse (e.g., ±5%) than those of regulator internal references (e.g., ±1%).

But is this objection actually true, and if so, how serious is the problem? How much of an accuracy penalty is actually incurred? This DI addresses these questions. 

Figure 1 shows a basic topology for sub-Vs regulator programming with current expressions as follows:

A = DpwmVs/R1
B = (1 – Dpwm)(Vl – Vs)/(R1 + R4)

Where A is the primary programming current and B is the sub-Vs programming current giving an output voltage:

Vout = R2(A + B) + Vs

Figure 1 Basic PWM regulator programming topology.

Inspection of the A and B current expressions shows that when the PWM duty factor (Dpwm) is set to full-scale 100% (Dpwm = 1), then B = 0. This is due to the (1 – Dpwm) term.

Therefore, there can be no error contribution from the logic rail Vl at full-scale.

At other Dpwm values, however, this happy circumstance no longer applies, and B becomes nonzero. Thus, Vl tolerance and noise degrade accuracy, at least to some extent. But, by how much?

The simplest way to address this crucial question is to evaluate it as a plausible example of Figure 1’s general topology. Figure 2 provides some concrete groundwork for that by adding some example values.

Figure 2 Putting some meat on Figure 1’s bare bones, adding example values to work with.

Assuming perfect resistors, nominal R1 currents are then:

A = Dpwm Vs/3300
B = (1 – Dpwm)(Vl – Vs)/123300
Vout = R2(A + B) + Vs = 75000(A + B) + 1.25

Then, making the (highly pessimistic) assumption that reference errors stack up as the sum of absolute values:

 Aerr = Dpwm 1%Vs/3300 = Dpwm 3.8µA
Berr = (1 – Dpwm) (5% 3.3v + 1% 1.25v)/123300 = (1 – Dpwm) 1.44µA
Vout total error = 75000(Dpwm 3.8µA + (1 – Dpwm)1.44µA)) + 1% Vs

The resulting Vout error plots are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Vout error plots where the x-axis is Dpwm and y-axis is Vout error. Black line is Vout = Vs at Dpwm = 0 and red line is Vout = 0 at Dpwm = 0.

Conclusion: Error does increase in the lower range of Vout when the Vout < Vsense feature is incorporated, but any difference completely disappears at the top end. So, the choice turns on the utility of Vout < Vsense.

Stephen Woodward’s relationship with EDN’s DI column goes back quite a long way. Over 100 submissions have been accepted since his first contribution back in 1974.

Related Content

• Simple PWM interface can program regulators for Vout < Vsense
• Three discretes suffice to interface PWM to switching regulators
• Revisited: Three discretes suffice to interface PWM to switching regulators
• PWM nonlinearity that software can’t fix
• Another PWM controls a switching voltage regulator

The post Accuracy loss from PWM sub-Vsense regulator programming appeared first on EDN.

Wolfspeed Inc of Durham, NC, USA — which makes silicon carbide (SiC) materials and power semiconductor devices — has launched 1200V SiC six-pack power modules for high-power inverters. By combining its latest Gen 4 SiC MOSFET technology and innovative packaging, the modules are claimed to deliver three times more power cycling capability at operating temperature than competing solutions, and 15% higher inverter current capability in an industry-standard footprint...

The University of Arkansas has opened its Multi-User Silicon Carbide Facility (MUSiC), which is claimed to the only open-access fabrication facility of its kind in the USA...

The relentless pursuit of higher performance and greater functionality has propelled the semiconductor industry through several transformative eras. The most recent shift is from traditional monolithic SoCs to heterogeneous integrated advanced package ICs, including 3D integrated circuits (3D ICs). This emerging technology promises to help semiconductor companies sustain Moore’s Law.

However, these advancements bring increasingly complex challenges, particularly in power integrity (PI) and signal integrity (SI). Once secondary, SI/PI have become critical disciplines in modern semiconductor development. As data rates ascend into multiple gigabits per second and power requirements become more stringent, error margins shrink dramatically, making SI/PI expertise indispensable. The fundamental challenge lies in ensuring clean and reliable signal transmissions and stable power delivery across intricate systems.

Figure 1 The above diagram highlights the basic signal integrity (SI) issues. Source: Siemens EDA

This article explains the unique SI/PI challenges in 3D IC designs by contrasting them with traditional SoCs. We will then explore a progressive verification strategy to address these complexities, examine the roles and interdependencies of stakeholders in the 3D IC ecosystem, and illustrate these concepts through a real-world success story. Finally, we will discuss how these innovations drive the future of semiconductor design.

Traditional SI/PI versus 3D IC approaches

In traditional SoC components destined for a PCB system, SI and PI analysis typically validates individual components before system integration. This often treats SoCs, packages, and PCBs as distinct entities, allowing sequential analysis and optimization. For instance, component-level power demand analysis can be performed on the monolithic SoC and its package, while signal integrity analysis validates individual channels.

The design process is often split between separate packaging and PCB teams working in parallel. These teams eventually collaborate to manage design trade-offs such as allocating timing or voltage margins between the package and PCB to accommodate routing constraints. While effective for traditional designs, this compartmentalized approach is inadequate for the inherent complexities of 3D ICs.

A 3D IC’s architecture is not merely a collection of components but a highly condensed system of mini subsystems, characterized by the vertical stacking of multiple dies. Inter-die interfaces, through-silicon vias (TSVs), and microbumps create a dense, highly interactive electrical environment where power and signal integrity issues are deeply intertwined and can propagate across multiple layers.

The tight integration and proximity of the dies introduce novel coupling mechanisms and power delivery challenges that cannot be effectively addressed by sequential, isolated analyses. Therefore, unlike a traditional flow, 3D ICs demand holistic, parallel validation from the outset, with SI and PI analyses commencing early and encompassing all constituent parts concurrently.

Progressive verification

To navigate the intricate landscape of 3D IC design, a progressive verification strategy is paramount. This principle acknowledges that design information is sparse in early stages and becomes progressively detailed.

The core idea behind progressive verification is to initiate analysis as early as possible with available inputs, guiding the design onto the correct path and transforming the final verification step into confirmation rather than a discovery of fundamental issues. Different analysis requirements are addressed as details become available, starting with minimal inputs and gradually incorporating more specific data.

Figure 2 Here is a view of a progressive verification flow. Source: Siemens EDA

Let’s summarize the various analyses involved and their timing in the design flow.

Early architectural feasibility and pre-layout analysis

At the initial design phase, before detailed layout information is available, the focus is on architectural feasibility studies. This involves estimating power budgets and defining high-level interfaces. Even with rough inputs, early analysis can commence. For instance, pre-layout signal integrity analysis can model representative interconnect structures, such as an interposer bridge.

By defining an “envelope” of achievable performance based on preliminary dimensions, designers can establish realistic expectations and guidelines for subsequent layout stages. This proactive approach helps identify potential bottlenecks and ensures a robust electrical foundation.

Floorplanning and implementation-driven analysis

As the design progresses to floorplanning and initial implementation, guidelines from early analysis are translated into a physical layout. At this stage, more in-depth analyses become possible. This includes detailed power delivery network (PDN) analysis to verify power distribution across stacked dies and the substrate.

Signal path verification with actual component interconnections can also begin, enabling early identification and optimization of critical signal routes. This iterative process of layout and analysis enables continuous refinement, ensuring physical implementation aligns with electrical performance targets.

Detailed electrical analysis with vendor-specific IP

The final stage of progressive verification involves comprehensive electrical analysis utilizing actual vendor-specific intellectual property (IP) models. Given the nascent state of 3D IC die-to-die standards—for instance UCIe, BoW, and AIB, which are less mature than established protocols like DDR or PCIe—this detailed analysis is even more critical.

Designers perform in-depth S-parameter modeling of impedance networks, feeding these models with precise current values obtained from die designers and other stakeholders. This granular analysis provides full closure on the design’s electrical performance, ensuring all critical signal paths and power delivery mechanisms meet specifications under real-world operating conditions.

The 3D IC ecosystem

The complexity of 3D IC designs necessitates a highly collaborative environment involving diverse stakeholders, each with unique perspectives and challenges. Effective communication and early engagement among these teams are crucial for successful integration.

1. System architects are responsible for the high-level floorplanning, determining the number of chiplets, baseband dies, and the communication channels required between them. Their challenge lies in optimizing the overall system architecture for performance, power, and area, while considering the physical constraints imposed by 3D integration.
2. Die designers focus on individual die architectures and oversee I/O planning and internal power distribution. They must communicate their power requirements and I/O characteristics accurately to ensure compatibility within the stacked system. Their primary challenge is to optimize the die-level performance while adhering to system-level constraints and ensuring robust power and signal delivery across the interfaces.
3. Layout teams are responsible for the physical implementation, encompassing die-level layout, substrate layout, and silicon interconnects like interposers and bridges. Often different layout teams may handle different aspects of the implementation, requiring meticulous coordination. Their challenges include managing extreme density, minimizing parasitic effects, and ensuring manufacturability across multiple layers.
4. SI/PI and verification teams act as technical consultants, providing guidelines and feedback at every level. They advise system architects on bump-out strategies for die floorplans and work with die designers to optimize power and ground bump counts. Their role is to proactively identify and mitigate potential SI/PI issues throughout the design cycle, ensuring that the electrical performance targets are met.
5. Mechanical and thermal teams ensure structural integrity and manage heat dissipation, respectively. Both are critical for the long-term reliability and performance of designs, as beyond electrical considerations, 3D ICs introduce significant mechanical and thermal challenges. For example, the close proximity of die can lead to localized hotspots and mechanical stresses due to differing coefficients of thermal expansion.

By employing a progressive verification methodology, these diverse stakeholders can engage in early and continuous communication, fostering a collaborative environment that makes it significantly easier to build a functional and reliable 3D IC design.

Chipletz’s proof of concept

The efficacy of a progressive verification strategy and collaborative ecosystem is best illustrated through real-world applications. Chipletz, a fabless substrate startup, exemplifies successful navigation of 3D IC design complexities in collaboration with an EDA partner. Chipletz is working closely with Siemens EDA for its Smart Substrate products, utilizing tools capable of supporting advanced 3D IC design requirements.

Figure 3 Smart Substrate uses cutting-edge chiplet integration technology that eliminates an interposer. Source: Siemens EDA

At the time, many industry-standard EDA tools were primarily tailored for traditional package and PCB architectures. Chipletz presented a formidable challenge: its designs featured massive floorplans with up to 50 million pin counts, demanding analysis tools with unprecedented capacity and layout tools capable of handling such intricate structures.

Siemens responded by engaging its R&D teams to enhance tool capacities and capabilities. This collaboration demonstrated not only the ability to handle these complex architectures but also to perform meaningful electrical analyses on such large designs. Initial efforts focused on fundamental aspects such as direct current (DC) IR drop analysis across the substrate and early PDN analysis.

Through these foundational steps, Siemens demonstrated its tools’ capabilities and, crucially, its commitment to working alongside Chipletz to overcome challenging roadblocks. This partnership enabled Chipletz to successfully tape out its initial demonstration vehicle, and it’s now progressing to the second revision of its design. This underscores the importance of adaptable EDA tools and strong collaboration in pushing the boundaries of 3D IC innovation.

Driving 3D IC innovation

3D ICs are unequivocally here to stay, with major semiconductor companies increasingly incorporating various forms of 3D packaging into their product roadmaps. This transition signifies a fundamental shift in how the industry approaches system design and integration. As the industry continues to embrace 3D IC integration as a key enabler for next-generation systems, the methodologies and collaborative approaches outlined in this article for SI and PI will only grow in importance.

The progressive verification strategy, coupled with close collaboration among diverse stakeholders, offers a robust framework for navigating the complex challenges inherent in 3D IC design. Companies and individuals who master these techniques will be exceptionally well-positioned to lead the next wave of semiconductor innovation, creating the high-performance, energy-efficient systems that will power our increasingly digital world.

Todd Burkholder is a senior editor at Siemens DISW. For over 25 years, he has worked as editor, author, and ghost writer with internal and external customers to create print and digital content across a broad range of EDA technologies. Todd began his career in marketing for high-technology and other industries in 1992 after earning a Bachelor of Science at Portland State University and a Master of Science degree from the University of Arizona.

John Caka is a signal and power integrity applications engineer with over a decade of experience in high-speed digital design, modeling, and simulation. He earned his B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Utah in 2013 and an MBA from the Quantic School of Business and Technology in 2024.

Related Content

• Putting 3D IC to work for you
• Making your architecture ready for 3D IC
• The multiphysics challenges of 3D IC designs
• Mastering multi-physics effects in 3D IC design
• Advanced IC Packaging: The Roadmap to 3D IC Semiconductor Scaling
• Automating FOWLP design: A comprehensive framework for next-generation integration

The post Signal integrity and power integrity analysis in 3D IC design appeared first on EDN.

The Norton amplifier topology brings back the essence of analog design by using clever circuit techniques to deliver strong performance with minimal components. It is not about a brand name—it’s about a timeless analog philosophy that continues to inspire engineers and hobbyists today. This approach shows why analog circuits remain powerful and relevant, even in our digital age.

In electronics, a Norton amplifier—also known as a current differencing amplifier (CDA)—is a specialized analog circuit that functions as a current-controlled voltage source. Its output voltage is directly proportional to the difference between two input currents, making it ideal for applications requiring precise current-mode signal processing.

Conceptually, it serves as the dual of an operational transconductance amplifier (OTA), offering a complementary approach to analog design and expanding the toolkit for engineers working with current-driven systems.

So, while most amplifier discussions orbit op-amps and voltage feedback, the Norton amplifier offers a subtler, current-mode alternative—elegant in its simplicity and quietly powerful in its departure from the norm. Let us go further.

Norton amplifier’s analog elegance

As shown in the LM2900 IC equivalent circuit below, the internal architecture is refreshingly straightforward. The most striking departure from a conventional op-amp—typically centered around a voltage-mode differential pair—lies in the input stage. Rather than employing the familiar long-tailed pair, this Norton amplifier features a current mirror followed by a common-emitter amplifier.

Figure 1 Equivalent circuit highlights the minimalist internal structure of the LM2900 Norton amplifier IC. Source: Texas Instruments

These devices have been around for decades, and they clearly continue to intrigue analog enthusiasts. Just recently, I picked up a batch of LM3900-HLF ICs from an online seller. The LM3900-HLF appears to be a Chinese-sourced variant of the classic LM3900—a quad Norton operational amplifier recognized for its current-differencing input and quietly unconventional topology. These low-cost quads are now widely used across analog systems, especially in medium-frequency and single-supply AC applications.

Figure 2 Pin connections of the LM3900-HLF support easy adoption in practical circuits. Source: HLF

In my view, the LM2900 and LM3900 series are more than just relics—they are reminders of a time when analog design embraced cleverness over conformity. Their current differencing architecture, once a quiet alternative to voltage-mode orthodoxy, still finds relevance in industrial signal chains where noise rejection, single-supply operation, and low-impedance interfacing matter.

You will not see these chips headlining new designs, but the principles they embody—robust, elegant, and quietly efficient—continue to shape sensor front-ends, motor drives, and telemetry systems. The ICs may have faded, but the technique endures, humming beneath the surface of modern infrastructure.

And, while it’s not as widely romanticized as the LM3900, the LM359 Norton amplifier remains a quietly powerful choice for analog enthusiasts who value speed with elegance. Purpose-built for video and fast analog signal processing, it stepped in with serious bandwidth and slewing muscle. As a dual high-speed Norton amplifier, it handles wideband signals with slew rates up to 60 V/μs and gain-bandwidth products reaching 400 MHz—a clear leap beyond its older cousins.

In industrial and instrumentation circles, LM359’s current-differencing input stage still commands respect for its low input bias, fast settling, and graceful handling of capacitive loads. Its legacy lives on in video distribution, pulse amplification, and high-speed analog comparators—especially in designs that prioritize speed and stability over rail-to-rail swing.

Wrapping up with a whiff of flux

There is not much more to say about Norton amplifiers for now, so we will wrap up this slightly off-the-beaten-path blog post here. As a parting gift, here is a practical LM3900-based circuit—just enough to satisfy those who find joy in the scent of solder smoke.

Figure 3 Bring this LM3900-based triangle/square waveform generator circuit to life and trace its quiet Norton-style elegance. Source: Author

Triangle waveforms are usually generated by an integrator, which receives first a positive DC input voltage, and then a negative DC input voltage. The LM3900 Norton amplifier facilitates this operation within systems powered by a single supply voltage, thanks to the current mirror present at its non-inverting (+) input. This feature enables triangle waveform generation without the need for a negative DC input.

In the above schematic diagram, amplifier IC1D functions as an integrator. It first operates with the current through R1 to generate a negative output voltage slope. When the IC1C amplifier—the Schmitt trigger—switches high, the current through R5 causes the output voltage to rise.

For optimal waveform symmetry, R1 should be set to twice the value of R5 (and here R1=1 MΩ and R5=470 KΩ, which is close enough). Note that the Schmitt circuit also provides a square wave output at the same frequency.

Feeling inspired? Fire up your breadboard, test the circuit, or share your own twist. Whether you are a seasoned tinkerer or just rediscovering the joy of analog, let this be your spark to keep exploring.

Finally, I hope this odd topic sparked some interest. If I have misunderstood anything—or if there is a better way to approach it—please feel free to chime in with corrections or suggestions in the comments. Exploring new ground always comes with the risk of missteps, and I welcome the chance to learn and improve.

T. K. Hareendran is a self-taught electronics enthusiast with a strong passion for innovative circuit design and hands-on technology. He develops both experimental and practical electronic projects, documenting and sharing his work to support fellow tinkerers and learners. Beyond the workbench, he dedicates time to technical writing and hardware evaluations to contribute meaningfully to the maker community.

Related Content

• Op amps: the 10,000-foot view
• Op-Amp Circuits, Configurations, and Schematics
• A generalized amplifier and the Miller-effect paradox
• New op amps address new—and old—design challenges
• Introduction to Operational Amplifier Applications, Op-amp Basics

The post Norton amplifiers: Precision and power, the analog way we remember appeared first on EDN.

So I got this thing chirping but I think the little battery powered amp/speaker I’m using is faulty. Super fun though if you have a busted Commodore 64. submitted by /u/shakeycg [link] [comments]

UK-based Oxford Instruments says that it is playing a key role to support the industry’s first fully automated 6-inch indium phosphide (InP) wafer fabrication capability for photonic devices, led by compound semiconductors and optical networking solutions provider Coherent Corp of Saxonburg, PA, USA...

submitted by /u/PepeIsLife69_ [link] [comments]

One of the PFFB (Post-Filter Feedback Technology)-based Class D audio amplifiers showcased in a recent writeup of mine was Fosi Audio’s V3 Mono, which will get sole billing today:

It interestingly (at least to me) originally launched as a Kickstarter project in April 2024:

As the name implies, it’s a monoblock unit, intended to drive only a single speaker, with both single-channel XLR balanced and RCA unbalanced input options.

I own four functional (for now, at least) devices, plus the nonfunctional one whose insides we’ll be seeing today. Why four? It’s not because I plan on driving both front left and right main speakers and a center speaker and subwoofer, or for that matter, the two main transducers plus two surrounds. Instead, it’s for spares, notably ones obtained pre-higher tariffs, and specifically to do with that dead fifth amp.

Design evolution, manufacturing, and reliability issues

Before I go all Debbie Downer on you, I’ll begin with the good news. The V3 Mono is highly reviewer-rated (see, for example, the write-up from my long-time tech compatriot Amir Majidimehr) and has also garnered no shortage of enthusiastic feedback from owners like Tim Bray, who had heard about it from Archimago (here’s part 2). Alas, amidst all that positive press are also a notable number of complaints from folks whose units let the magic smoke escape, sometimes on just the first use, or whose amplifiers had more modest but still annoying issues.

Mis-wired connections

I’ll start with the most innocuous quirk and end with the worst. Initial units were mis-wired from the PCB to the speaker banana plugs (due, I actually suspect, to a fundamental PCB trace layout issue) in such a way that they ended up with inverted-polarity outputs, i.e., signals being 180° out of phase from how they should be.

This wasn’t particularly a problem if all the units in your setup exhibited the issue, because at least then the phase was consistently inverted. However, if one (or some, depending on your setup complexity) of them were in phase and other(s) were out of phase, the inconsistency resulted in a collapsed stereo image and overall decreased volume due to destructive interference between the in- and out-of-phase speakers.

The same goes if you mixed-and-combined out-of-phase V3 Monos with in-phase other devices, whether from other manufacturers or even from Fosi Audio itself. The fix is pretty easy; connect the red speaker wire to the black speaker terminal of the affected V3 Mono instead, and vice versa, to externally reinvert the phase back to how it should be. But from my experience with these units, it’s not possible to discern if a particular device is wired correctly without disassembling it; this guy’s sticker-based methodology, for example, didn’t pan out for me:

As commenter @TheirryG01210 wrote in response to the above video, “A better way to figure out if phase is correct is to check that cables are cross-connected (left solder pads cable goes to the right banana socket and vice versa).”

That’s spot-on advice. Here, for example, is one of my functional units, which has the wires un-crossed, therefore operating in an inverted-output fashion. That said, this approach looks like how it should be wired, right? Therefore, my conjecture that this actually is inherently a PCB layout issue, with wire-swapping the cheaper, easier workaround to the alternative costlier and otherwise more complicated board “turn”.

My photo also matches one of the two in this Audio Science Review discussion thread post:

The other picture in that post shows the wires crossed; it’s not clear to me whether this is something that the owner did post-purchase with a soldering iron or if Fosi Audio revamped units still in its inventory, after discovering the problem and prior to shipping them out:

Conceptually, it matches the from-factory crossed wiring of my other three functional devices, along with today’s teardown victim, although the wire colors are also swapped with my units:

But color doesn’t matter. A crossed-wires configuration is what’s key to a correct-phase output.

The next, more recently introduced issue involves gain-setting inconsistency. Look at the most recent version of the “stock” image for the product on Amazon’s website, for example:

And you’ll see that the two gain-switch options supported for the RCA input (the switch doesn’t affect the XLR input) are 19 dB and 25 dB. That said, the gain options shown in the online user manual are instead 25 dB and 31 dB, which match the original units, including all of mine:

Here’s the key excerpt from an email by Fosi Audio quoted in a relevant Audio Science Review post (bolded emphasis is mine):

We would like to confirm whether your V3 mono gain is the old version or the new version. Since V3mono does not have a volume adjustment knob. It has already obtained a large power output when it is turned on, so we have reduced the gain of 31db to 25db, and 25db to 19db in the new version, which can effectively ensure the stable output of V3mono, safe use and extend the service life.

Loud “pop” sound

Which leads to my last, and the most concerning, issue. After a seemingly random duration of operation, but sometimes just the first use, judging from comments I’ve seen on Audio Science Review, Amazon, Fosi’s online store, and elsewhere, the amplifier emits a loud “pop” and the sound disappears, never to return.

The front panel light still glows, and you can still hear the “click” when the amp initially turns on or transitions out of standby in response to sensing an active input source (or when you transition from one input to another, for that matter), but as for the output…nothing but the sound(s) of silence. This very issue happened with one of the devices I purchased brand new, fortunately, within the return-for-full-refund period.

Several of the other V3 Monos I acquired “open box” off eBay also arrived already DOA. In one particularly mind (and amp)-blowing case, I bought a single-box two-device set. When I opened it up, one of the amps had a piece of blue tape stuck to the top with the word “good” scribbled on it. Yep, the other one was not “good”. 

What the eBay seller explained to me in the process of issuing a ship-back-for-full-refund is that when large retailers get a return, they sometimes just turn around and resell it discounted to eBay sellers like her, apparently without remembering to test it first (or, more cynically, maybe just not caring about its current condition).

A blown-output case study

Today’s victim (1,000+ words in) was another eBay-DOA example. In this case, the seller didn’t ask me to return it prior to issuing a refund, and it therefore became a teardown candidate, hopefully enabling me to discern just where the Achilles’ Heel in this design is.

To Fosi Audio’s credit, by the way, the pace of complaints for this particular issue seems to have slowed down dramatically of late. When I first looked at the customer feedback on Amazon, etc., earlier this year, comments were overwhelmingly negative. Now, revisiting various feedback forums, I see the mix has notably shifted in the positive-percentage direction. That said, my cynical side wonders if Fosi and Amazon might just now be nuking negative posts, but hope springs eternal…

I’ll start with some overview shots of our patient, one of which you’ve already seen, as usual, accompanied by a 0.75″ (19.1 mm) diameter U.S. penny for size comparison purposes (the V3 Mono, not including its bulbous suite of external power supply options, has dimensions of 105 x 35 x 142 mm and weighs 480 grams).

Remove the two side screws from the back panel:

And the front panel slides right out:

The “Aesthetic and Practical Dust-Proof Filter Screens” (I’m quoting from Fosi Audio’s website, though I concur that they both look cool and act cooling) also then slide right out if you wish:

Removing two more screws on the bottom:

Now allows for the extraction of the internal assembly (here again, you saw one photo already):

PCB extraction and examination

The front and back halves of the “Sturdy and Durable All-Aluminum Alloy Chassis” are identical (and an aside: pretty snazzy shots, eh?):

Returning to the PCB topside (with still-attached back panel), let’s take a closer look:

One thing I didn’t notice at first is that none of the ICs are PCB-silkscreened as to their type (R for resistor, for example, C for capacitor, L for inductor, U for IC, etc…), far from their specific-device identifying number (R1, C3, L5, U2…). Along the left side, top to bottom, are:

• The three-position switch for on, auto, and off operating modes
• The power status LED
• The two-position XLR-vs-RCA input selector switch, and
• A nifty two-contact spring-loaded switch that’s depressed when the front panel is in place. I suspect, but didn’t test for myself, that it prevents amplifier operation whenever the front panel is removed.

Note, too, the four screw heads in between the two multi-position switches, along with the ribbon cable. Look closely and you’ll realize that the first three items mentioned are actually located on a separate mini-PCB, connected to the main one mechanically via the screws (which, as you’ll see shortly, are actually bolts) and electrically via the ribbon cable.

And in fact, the silkscreen marking on the mini-PCB says (among other things) “SW PCB” (SW meaning switch, I assume) while the main PCB silkscreen in the lower left corner says…drumroll…”MAIN PCB”.

Why Fosi Audio went this multi-PCB route is frankly a mystery to me. Until I noticed the labeled silkscreen markings (admittedly just now, as I was writing this section) I’d thought that perhaps the main board was common to multiple amplifier product proliferations, with the front panel switches, etc. differentiating between them. But given that both boards’ silkscreens also say “Fosi Audio V3 MONO” on them, I can now toss that theory out the window. Readers’ ideas are welcome in the comments!

In the middle of the photo are two 8-pin DIP socketed chips, op-amps in fact, Texas Instruments NE5532P dual low-noise operational amplifiers to be precise.

They’re socketed because, as Fosi Audio promotes on the product page and akin to the two Douk Audio amplifiers I showcased in my prior coverage, too, they’re intended to be user-swappable, analogous to the “tube rolling” done by vacuum tube-based audio equipment enthusiasts.

Numerous (Elna) electrolytic and surface-mount capacitors (along with other SMD passives) dot the landscape, which is dominated by two massive Nichicon 63V/2200μF electrolytic filtering capacitors (explicitly identified as such, along with the Elna ones, by visual and text shout-outs on the V3 Mono product page, believe it or not). And one other, smaller Texas Instruments 8-lead IC (soldered SOP this time) on the bottom toward the right bears mentioning. It’s marked as follows:

N5532
TI41M
A9GG

Its first-line mark similarity to the previously mentioned NE5532P is notable, albeit potentially also coincidental. That said, Google Image search results also imply that it’s indeed another dual low-noise op amp. And it’s not the last of them we’ll see. Speaking of which, let’s next look at the other half of the PCB topside:

There it was at the bottom; another socketed TI NE5532P! Straddling it on either side are Omron G6K-2P-Y relays. At the top are even more relays, this time with functional symbol marks on top to eliminate any identity confusion: another white-color one, this time a Zhejiang HKE HRS3FTH-S-DC24V-A, and below it a dark grey HCP2-S-DC24V-A from the same supplier.

Remember when I mentioned earlier that after one V3 Mono stopped outputting amplified audio, I could still hear relay clicks when I toggled its power and input-select switches? Voila, the click-sound sources.

Those coupling capacitors are another curious component call-out on the V3 Mono product page; they’re apparently sourced from German supplier WIMA. The latter two, on either side of the aforementioned PCB solder pads that end up at the speaker’s banana plug connectors, are grey here but yellow colored at Fosi Audio’s website, so…

To the left of the red coupling caps is a grey metal box with two slits on top and copper-color contents visible through them; hold that thought. And last but not least, along the right edge of the PCB are (top to bottom) the power-input connector, two hefty resistors, the XLR input, and the RC input. The two-wire harness in the lower corner goes to the aforementioned gain switch.

Insufficient thermal protection?

Now for the other side:

That IC at far left was quite a challenge to identify. To the right of an “AB” company logo is the following three-line mark:

TNJB0089A
UMG992
2349

Google searches on the text, either line-by-line or its entirety, were fruitless (at least to me). However, I found a photo of a chip with a matching first-line mark here. About the only thing on that page that I could read was the words “AB137A SOP16”, but that was the clue I needed.

The AB137A, is (more accurately was) from the company Shenzhen Bluetrum Technology, which Internet Archive snapshots suggest changed its name to Shenzhen Zhongke Lanxun Technology at the beginning of this year. The bluetrum.com/product/ab137a.html product page no longer seems to exist, nor does the link from there to the datasheet at bluetrum.com/upload/file/202411/1732257601186423.pdf. But again, thanks to the Internet Archive (the last valid snapshot of the product page that seems to exist there is from last November) I’ve been able to discern the following:

• CPU and Flexible IO
  High-performance 32-bit RISC-V processor Core with DSP instructions
  RISC-V typical speed: 125 MHz
  Program memory: internal 2 Mbit flash
  Internal 60 KB RAM for data and program
  Flexible GPIO pins with programmable pull-up and pull-down resistors
  Support GPIO wakeup or interrupt
• Audio Interface
  High-performance stereo DAC with 95 dB SNR
  High-performance mono ADC with 90 dB SNR
  Support flexible audio EQ adjust
  MIC amplifier input
  Support Sample rate 8, 11.025, 12, 16, 22.05, 32, 44.1, and 48 kHz
  Four-channel Stereo Analog MUX
• Package
  SOP16
• Temperature
  Operating temperature: -40℃ to +85℃
  Storage temperature: -65℃ to +150℃

So, there you have it (at least I think)!

The other half of this side of the PCB is less exciting, unless you’re into blobs of solder (along with, let’s not forget, another glimpse of those hefty resistors), that is:

But it’s what’s in the middle of this side of the PCB, therefore common to both of those PCB pictures, that had me particularly intrigued; you too, I suspect. Remove the two screws whose heads are on the PCB’s other side:

Lift off the plate:

Clean the thermal paste off the top of the IC, and what comes into view is what you’ve probably already suspected: Texas Instruments’ TPA3255, the design’s Class D amplification nexus:

At this point in the write-up, I’m going to offer my conjecture on what happened with this device. The inside of the metal plate, acting as a heatsink, paste-mates with the TPA3255:

while the outside, also thermal paste-augmented, is intended to further transfer the heat to the bottom of the aluminum case via the two screws I removed prior to pulling the PCB out of it:

Key to my theory are the words and phrases “bottom” and “thermal paste”. First off, it’s a bit odd to me that the TPA3255, the design’s obvious primary heat-generation source, is on the bottom of the PCB, given that (duh) heat rises. The tendency would then be for it to “cook” not only itself but also circuitry above it, on the other side of the PCB, although the metal plate-as-heatsink should at least somewhat mitigate this issue or at least spread it out.

This leads to my other observation: there’s scant thermal paste on either side of the plate for heat-transfer purposes, off the IC and ultimately to the outside world, and what exists is pockmarked. I’m therefore guessing that the TPA3255 thermally destroyed itself, and with that, the music died.

Wrapping up

Before I forget, let’s detach that mini-PCB I mentioned earlier. Here are the backside nuts:

And the front-side bolt heads:

Disconnect the ribbon cable:

And you already know what comes next:

Not too exciting, but I’ve gotta be thorough, right?

At this point, it occurred to me that I hadn’t yet taken any main-PCB side shots. Front:

Left side:

The back:

The right side:

And after removing the two screws surrounding the XLR input:

I was able to lift the back panel away, exposing to view even more PCB circuitry:

In closing, remember that “grey box with two slits on top and copper-color contents visible through them” that I mentioned earlier? Had I looked closely enough at the V3 Mono product page before proceeding, I would have already realized what it was (although, in my slight defense, the photo is mis-captioned there):

Then again, I also could have identified it via the photo I included in my previous write-up:

Instead, I proceeded to use my flat-head screwdriver to rip it off the PCB in the process of attempting to more conservatively detach just its “lid”:

As I already suspected from the “copper-color contents visible through the two slits on top”, it’s a dual wirewound inductor:

from Sumida, offering “superior signal purity and noise reduction, elevating the amplifier’s sound performance,” per Fosi Audio’s website.

Crossing through 3,000 words, I’ll wrap up at this point and turn the keyboard over to you for your thoughts in the comments!

—Brian Dipert is the Principal at Sierra Media and a former technical editor at EDN Magazine, where he still regularly contributes as a freelancer.

 Related Content

• Class D: Audio amplifier ascendancy
• Audio amplifiers: How much power (and at what tradeoffs) is really required?
• Class D audio power amplifiers: Adding punch to your sound design
• How Class D audio amplifiers work

The post The Fosi Audio V3 Mono: A compelling power amp with a tendency to blow appeared first on EDN.

Artificial intelligence is moving out of the cloud and into the operations that create and deliver products to us every day. Across manufacturing lines, logistics centers, and production facilities, AI at the edge is transforming industrial operations, bringing intelligence directly to the source of data. As the industrial internet of things (IIoT) matures, edge-based AI is no longer an optional enhancement; it’s the foundation for the next generation of productivity, quality, and safety in industrial environments.

This shift is driven by the need for real-time, contextually aware intelligence—systems that can see, hear, and even “feel” their surroundings, analyze sensor data instantly, and make split-second decisions without relying on distant cloud servers. From predictive maintenance and automated inspection to security monitoring and logistics optimization, edge AI is redefining how machines think and act.

Why industrial AI belongs at the edge

Traditional industrial systems rely heavily on centralized processing. Data from machines, sensors, and cameras is transmitted to the cloud for analysis before insights are sent back to the factory floor. While effective in some cases, this model is increasingly impractical and inefficient for modern, latency-sensitive operations.

Implementing at the edge addresses that. Instead of sending vast streams of data off-site, intelligence is brought closer to where data is created, within or around the machine, gateway, or local controller itself. This local processing offers three primary advantages:

• Low latency and real-time decision-making: In production lines, milliseconds matter. Edge-based AI can detect anomalies or safety hazards and trigger corrective actions instantly without waiting for a network round-trip.
• Enhanced security and privacy: Industrial environments often involve proprietary or sensitive operational data. Processing locally minimizes data exposure and vulnerability to network threats.
• Reduced power and connectivity costs: By limiting cloud dependency, edge systems conserve bandwidth and energy, a crucial benefit in large, distributed deployments such as logistics hubs or complex manufacturing centers.

These benefits have sparked a wave of innovation in AI-native embedded systems, designed to deliver high performance, low power consumption, and robust environmental resilience—all within compact, cost-optimized footprints.

Edge-based AI is the foundation for the next generation of productivity, quality, and safety in industrial environments, delivering low latency, real-time decision-making, enhanced security and privacy, and reduced power and connectivity costs. (Source: Adobe AI Generated) Localized intelligence for industrial applications

Edge AI’s success in IIoT is largely based on contextual awareness, which can be defined as the ability to interpret local conditions and act intelligently based on situational data. This requires multimodal sensing and inference across vision, audio, and even haptic inputs. In manufacturing, for example:

• Vision-based inspection systems equipped with local AI can detect surface defects or assembly misalignments in real time, reducing scrap rates and downtime.
• Audio-based diagnostics can identify early signs of mechanical failure by recognizing subtle deviations in sound signatures.
• Touch or vibration sensors help assess machine wear, contributing to predictive maintenance strategies that reduce unplanned outages.

In logistics and security, edge AI cameras provide real-time monitoring, object detection, and identity verification, enabling autonomous access control or safety compliance without constant cloud connectivity. A practical example of this approach is a smart license-plate-recognition system deployed in industrial zones, a compact unit capable of processing high-resolution imagery locally to grant or deny vehicle access in milliseconds.

In all of these scenarios, AI inference happens on-site, reducing latency and power consumption while maintaining operational autonomy even in network-constrained environments.

Low power, low latency, and local learning

Industrial environments are unforgiving. Devices must operate continuously, often in high-temperature or high-vibration conditions, while consuming minimal power. This has made energy-efficient AI accelerators and domain-specific system-on-chips (SoCs) critical to edge computing.

A good example of this trend is the early adoption of the Synaptics Astra SL2610 SoC platform by Grinn, which has already resulted in a production-ready system-on-module (SOM), Grinn AstraSOM-261x, and a single-board computer (SBC). By offering a compact, industrial-grade module with full software support, Grinn enables OEMs to accelerate the design of new edge AI devices and shorten time to market. This approach helps bridge the gap between advanced silicon capabilities and practical system deployment, ensuring that innovations can quickly translate into deployable industrial solutions.

The Grinn–Synaptics collaboration demonstrates how industrial AI systems can now run advanced vision, voice, and sensor fusion models within compact, thermally optimized modules.

These platforms combine:

• Embedded quad-core Arm processors for general compute tasks
• Dedicated neural processing units (NPUs) delivering multi-trillion operations per second for inference
• Comprehensive I/O for camera, sensor, and audio input
• Industrial-grade security

Equally important is support for custom small language models (SLMs) and on-device training capabilities. Industrial environments are unique. Each factory line, conveyor system, or inspection station may generate distinct datasets. Edge devices that can perform localized retraining or fine-tuning on new sensor patterns can adapt faster and maintain high accuracy without cloud retraining cycles.

The Grinn OneBox AI-enabled industrial SBC, designed for embedded edge AI applications, leverages a Grinn AstraSOM compute module and the Synaptics SL1680 processor. (Source: Grinn Global) Emergence of compact multimodal platforms

The recent introduction of next-generation SoCs such as Synaptics’ SL2610 underscores the evolution of edge AI hardware. Built for embedded and industrial systems, these platforms offer integrated NPUs, vision digital-signal processors, and sensor fusion engines that allow devices to perceive multiple inputs simultaneously, such as camera feeds, audio signals, or even environmental readings.

Such capabilities enable richer human-machine interaction in industrial contexts. For instance, a line operator can use voice commands and gestures to control inspection equipment, while the system responds with real-time feedback through both visual indicators and audio prompts.

Because the processing happens on-device, latency is minimal, and the system remains responsive even if external networks are congested. Low-power design and adaptive performance scaling also make these platforms suitable for battery-powered or fanless industrial devices.

From the cloud to the floor: practical examples

Collaborations like the Grinn–Synaptics development have produced compact, power-efficient edge computing modules for industrial and smart city deployments. These modules integrate high-performance neural processing, customized AI implementations, and ruggedized packaging suitable for manufacturing and outdoor environments.

Deployed in use cases such as automated access control and vision-guided robotics, these systems demonstrate how localized AI can replace bulky servers and external GPUs. All inference, from image recognition to object tracking, is performed on a module the size of a matchbox, using only a few watts of power.

The results:

• Reduced latency from hundreds of milliseconds to under 10 ms
• Lower total system cost by eliminating cloud compute dependencies
• Improved reliability in areas with limited connectivity or strict privacy requirements

The same architecture supports multimodal sensing, enabling combined visual, auditory, and contextual awareness—key for applications such as worker safety systems that must recognize both spoken alerts and visual cues in noisy and complex factory environments.

Toward self-learning, sustainable intelligence

The evolution of edge AI is about more than just performance; it’s about autonomy and adaptability. With support for custom, domain-specific SLMs, industrial systems can evolve through continual learning. For example, an inspection model might retrain locally as lighting conditions or material types change, maintaining precision without manual recalibration.

Moreover, the combination of low-power processing and localized AI aligns with growing sustainability goals in industrial operations. Reducing data transmission, cooling needs, and cloud dependencies contributes directly to lower carbon footprints and energy costs, critical as industrial AI deployments scale globally.

Edge AI as the engine of industrial transformation

The rise of AI at the edge marks a turning point for IIoT. By merging context-aware intelligence with efficient, scalable compute, organizations can unlock new levels of operational visibility, flexibility, and resilience.

Edge AI is no longer about supplementing the cloud; it’s about bringing intelligence where it’s most needed, empowering machines and operators alike to act faster, safer, and smarter.

From the shop floor to the supply chain, localized, multimodal, and energy-efficient AI systems are redefining the digital factory. With continued innovation from technology partnerships that blend high-performance silicon with real-world design expertise, the industrial world is moving toward a future where every device is an intelligent, self-aware contributor to production excellence.

The post Edge AI powers the next wave of industrial intelligence appeared first on EDN.