Збирач потоків

Yours truly can’t try to do the splits without ending up in the hospital, and suspects many of you would find the maneuver equally complicated-to-impossible…as does, it turns out, USB.

In last week’s initial post of this series, I discussed ongoing imperfections in the latest-generation USB-C standard, specifically with respect to single-source-to-sink interconnect, and encompassing power transfer, data interchange, and both-simultaneously setups.

• Nebulous-at-best identified cable capabilities and their user impacts
• Polarity dependencies on resultant performance
• The broader pros and cons of an industry standard which encourages compliance but doesn’t require independently assessed compatibility

In doing so, I was following up on other points already raised in my prior coverage, based on multiple case studies personally experienced by me.

• USB: Deciphering the signaling, connector, and power delivery differences
• USB Power Delivery: incompatibility-derived foibles and failures
• USB 3: How did it end up being so messy?

That includes the necessity for “sink” devices using USB-C for power-input purposes (including charging of embedded batteries) to connect solely to power sources via USB-A-to-USB-C adapter cables, versus newer and more logical dual-ended USB-C alternatives, in order to achieve proper-operation outcomes. Such workarounds presumably result from subpar USB Power Delivery (USB-PD) implementations.

At the conclusion of that prior post, I wrote:

I’ve got one more notable USB-C-related implementation-challenge situation to discuss, but after just passing through 2,000 words, I’m going to save it for next week’s part-two post.

Background to my curiosity

That’s where today’s follow-up blog comes in. Specifically, if you haven’t already figured it out from the title and subhead, I’m going to cover splitters, which assist in interconnecting a single source with multiple “sinks”, again with power, data, or both transfer aspirations.

My main impetus for recent interest in the topic is the portable power stations from EcoFlow and others that I’ve been acquiring, using, testing, and writing about of late. Take, for example, the EcoFlow RIVER 2 that I first covered in detail in February 2025.

It has only two USB-A power outputs, both 12 W max (industry-standard 5V@2.4A, absent any proprietary QC enhancements). And although its USB-C facilities are USB-PD cognizant (5/9/12/15/20V@3A, 60 W max), there’s only one of them. So, if my wife and I both want to fast-recharge our smartphones via USB-C during an extended power outage, for example, how might we be able to accomplish this without arm-wrestling or a shouting match? With a splitter, of course.

Here’s one example of the concept, an early “category creator” market entrant, Anker’s 140W 2-in-1 USB-C to USB-C cable.

We’ll revisit it later in this piece. It comes in 4’ and 6’ length options and black and white color variants and is analyzed in detail in this Reddit thread and linked teardown.

Proportional power allocation (or not)

Back in prior-generation USB days, specifically for power splitting purposes, the implementation and usage were reasonably straightforward. The only source output voltage option was 5 V. The output current was whatever the source max’d out at. And the parallel-connected “sinks” consumed whatever subset of the available electrons each of them could successfully allocate to itself.

The only notable issues (unless I’m overlooking something; readers, let me know in the comments) with this elementary implementation were practical:

• Each “sink” device might recharge slower than if it had the source all to itself.
• Some of the “sinks” might not work reliably because their available allocated percentage of the current was insufficient for requisite power and/or recharge purposes.
• Others might not work because they required a voltage higher than 5 V (Apple laptops, for example, something I learned while researching adapters for part 1 of this series).
• And in the opposite-trend direction, if the source was subpar in its design, the high aggregate “sink” current demand might result in excessive output voltage drop sufficient to take all connected power destinations offline.

With USB-C (specifically, USB-PD), things unsurprisingly have gotten a “bit” more complicated. As my colleague Bill Schweber noted in his recent treatise on the topic, “USB-PD allows for multiple loads to be charged at the same time, each with different requirements”. And of course he’s right. But, then again, only with a properly implemented USB-PD ecosystem.

To wit, I’ve also come across plenty of case study examples on Reddit and elsewhere detailing situations, both hypothetical in their proposed root causes and confirmed by postmortem analysis, wherein someone plugged a laptop into one output of a splitter followed by a mouse, keyboard or some other more elementary device into the other output, a second device which (incorrectly) was then also subjected to the first device’s required high voltage and promptly emitted “magic smoke”, followed by demise.

So, what’s a splitter supplier to do? (At least) three options exist, as I see it:

• Bail on USB-PD and power everything by 5V@3A only (with already-discussed consequent potential functional issues).
• Negotiate with every connect device and run ‘em all at the lowest voltage that they all have in common. Safe? Sure. But also functional interruption-prone with every splitter output-tethered device connection and removal. Want your SSD to power-cycle mid-write each time something else mates with or detaches from the splitter? Me neither.
• Or follow the USB-PD spec to the nth degree, aspiring for per-splitter-output voltage and current optimization to the capabilities and preferences of the associated connected “sink” device, and hoping that your silicon and software “building block” suppliers have adequately accounted and compensated for all possible edge and corner cases.

Good luck with that, product developers and users alike.

Selective data directionality

Ready for our next implementation complication? What, if anything, do you do about your customers’ potential desires for the connection between the splitter input and any/all output(s) to transport not only power but also data? In all the product implementations I’ve come across so far (stay tuned for the details to come shortly), bidirectional USB 2.0 (480 Mbps) rates are best-case supported, either assigned consistently to a dedicated output connector or to “the first output to connect to a device,” not simultaneously to all possible splitter outputs. But why?

Keep in mind that, akin to the passive Ethernet splitters that I discussed recently, there’s no active switching going on here. That’s what more complex (and costly) USB hub devices are for, if it’s what you need. Instead, once again, (at least) three implementation options exist with humble splitters, again as I see it (sound off in the comments, readers, if I overlooked or conversely overstated something):

• Bail on data carriage and focus only on power transfer. You’ll still need to comprehend the Configuration Channel (CC) signals if you want to support USB-PD, however.
• Pick a splitter output and run the bidirectional data solely and consistently between it and the input.
• Or decide that the first device that connects to the splitter’s multiple outputs is the only one that has the opportunity, if it chooses to take advantage of it, to leverage not only power but also bidirectional data transfer facilities. And what happens when that device later disconnects from the splitter? Unclear.

Case study implementation diversity

I’ve so far collected four USB-C splitters in recent months, for both personal-use and teardown purposes. As you’ll see shortly, they handle both power and data transfer very differently, a divergence scenario that I find very interesting, as it implies leverage of different reference designs if not entirely different chip-supplier foundations (therefore the teardown angle).

In alphabetical order, beginning with the product you’ve already been introduced to earlier:

• Anker 2-in-1 USB-C to USB-C cable
  • Length options: 4’ and 6’
  • Color options: black and white
  • Outputs: 2
  • Power carriage: 140 W (max). “When two devices are used simultaneously, the first device plugged in receives higher power. The actual power each device receives depends on its power needs.”
  • Data carriage: USB 2.0 (480 Mbps) to first connected device
• Belkin 2-in-1 USB C to USB c Cable
  • Length: 5’
  • Color options: black and white
  • Outputs: 2
  • Power carriage: 140 W (max). “With two devices, smart power sharing splits power and the first device plugged in may get priority.”
  • Data carriage: USB 2.0 (480 Mbps) to first connected device

• Baseus Flash 2 in 1 USB C cable
  • Length: 4.9’
  • Color: black and white
  • Outputs: 2
  • Power carriage: 100 W (max)
  • Data carriage: USB 2.0 (480 Mbps)
    • Note: data transfer is apparently supported only in the latest v2 design. Conversely, with the seemingly initial product version I’d purchased back in September 2024, “Please note that this cable is designed specifically for charging purposes and does not support data transfer or video signal transmission.”

• MPATIBY 4 in 1 USB C cable
  • Length: 5’
  • Color: Black and grey (the version I own: various other options also available)
  • Outputs: 4
  • Power carriage: 5V-only: “The usb c multi charging cable does NOT support fast charging.”
  • Data carriage: USB 2.0 (480 Mbps), consistently and only to one of the outputs, with a uniquely labeled connector.

Online expertise recommendations, and in conclusion

Back in the early days of USB-C, when Nexus smartphones and M1 Apple Silicon-based laptops were getting destroyed by dodgy cables, hubs, chargers and other third-party implementations (or at least that’s what Apple was blaming), an engineer at Google named Benson Leung was the “knight in shining armor” that everyone was relying on to both publicly shame the miscreants and tell users what they should be buying instead. Benson’s seemingly still at Google and remains active on Reddit re USB-C matters, even though his Linkedin profile reports he’s now primarily working on other stuff.

More generally, I consistently found myself directed toward relevant discussion threads on the UsbCHardware subreddit (for which Benson is one of the moderators) as I was web searching while researching various topics in preparation for writing this piece, links to several of which I’ve already shared in both parts of this writeup series. Quality time spent there to get up to speed, while as-usual-for-Reddit filtering out the cruft, is recommended for any USB-C devotee.

And with that, I’ll wrap up for today. As always, I welcome your thoughts in the comments!

—Brian Dipert is the associate editor, as well as a contributing editor, at EDN.

Related Content

• USB-C’s lingering incompatibilities and other complexities, part 1: Direct-connect complications
• USB: Deciphering the signaling, connector, and power delivery differences
• USB Power Delivery: incompatibility-derived foibles and failures
• USB 3: How did it end up being so messy?
• USB-C and Power Delivery: Too much of a good thing?

The post USB-C’s lingering incompatibilities and complexities, part 2: Splitter issues appeared first on EDN.

КПІшник створив дрон для пошуку мін KPI4U-2 чт, 07/23/2026 - 14:41

Deposition equipment maker Aixtron SE of Herzogenrath, near Aachen, Germany is now actively recruiting for a variety of roles at the new facility that it is building in Penang, Malaysia...

Volta Metals Ltd of Toronto, Canada (which owns, has optioned and is currently exploring a critical minerals portfolio of rare-earths, gallium, lithium, cesium and tantalum projects in Ontario) has entered into a definitive purchase agreement with RZJ Capital Management LLC to acquire — for $1m in cash plus 10 million common shares at a deemed price of $0.20 per share — the remaining 20% interest in the Springer Rare Earth Element (REE) and Gallium Deposit, which spans 4750-hectares on the traditional territory of the Nipissing First Nations in Sturgeon Falls, about 70km east of Sudbury, Ontario...

AXT Inc of Fremont, CA, USA — which makes gallium arsenide (GaAs), indium phosphide (InP) and germanium (Ge) substrates and raw materials at plants in China — has appointed Jia-Bin Duh to its board, increasing the number of directors to six...

The aerospace industry is undergoing a profound power architecture shift. For decades, radiation-hardened (rad-hard) silicon MOSFETs were the undisputed workhorses of spaceborne DC-DC converters. However, as modern satellite payloads demand higher efficiency, tighter density, and lower mass, silicon is hitting its physical limits.

Enter gallium nitride (GaN) high electron mobility transistors (HEMTs). Boasting a wider bandgap, superior electron mobility, and inherent robustness against certain radiation mechanisms, GaN is the key to unlocking next-generation space power densities. Yet, translating these raw material advantages into flight-ready, highly reliable hardware requires a deep understanding of its unique driving requirements and its interaction with rad-hard pulse width modulation (PWM) controllers.

The rad-hard landscape: Silicon vs. GaN

Space radiation hazards generally fall into two categories: Total ionizing dose (TID) and single event effects (SEE).

In silicon MOSFETs, TID causes a build-up of trapped holes in the thick gate oxide, leading to a severe negative shift in threshold voltage (Vth) and increased leakage current. On the other hand, GaN HEMTs lack a traditional gate oxide, utilizing a Schottky or p-GaN gate structure instead. Because there is no oxide to trap charges, rad-hard GaN devices exhibit exceptional inherent tolerance to TID, often surviving exposure well past 100 krad(Si) to 1 Mrad(Si) with minimal parameter shifts.

While GaN shines under TID, SEE is where the engineering nuances lie. Silicon MOSFETs are susceptible to single event burnout (SEB) and single event gate rupture (SEGR) due to heavy ion strikes creating parasitic bipolar conduction paths or destroying the gate oxide.

But GaN HEMTs don’t suffer from traditional SEB or SEGR because they are majority-carrier devices without parasitic bipolar structures. However, they are prone to single event transients (SETs) and catastrophic degradation at high drain-to-source voltages (VDS). Under heavy ion bombardment, localized high electric fields near the drain can cause high-current leakage paths. Consequently, a VDS derating of 30% to 50% of the maximum rated voltage is standard practice for spaceflight GaN applications.

Alex Lidow, CEO and co-founder of Efficient Power Conversion (EPC), notes the physical limitations of legacy materials: “Silicon has had a glorious 60-year run, but it has hit its theoretical performance wall. In space applications, where every gram of weight translates directly to launch cost, GaN isn’t just an alternative—it’s an absolute architectural necessity.”

Driving the delicate GaN gate

The primary challenge when designing a flight-ready GaN converter is managing the gate drive. Silicon MOSFETs typically feature a comfortable gate threshold of 2 V to 4 V and can tolerate gate voltages up to ±20 V. GaN HEMTs are far less forgiving:

• Low threshold voltage: GaN devices typically turn on at a mere 1.5 V to 2.0 V.
• Fragile gate rating: The absolute maximum gate-to-source voltage (VDS) is often capped at a tight -5 V to +6 V.
• Ultra-low gate charge (QG): GaN switches an order of magnitude faster than silicon. While this minimizes switching losses, it introduces severe dv/dt and di/dt sensitivities.

If the gate drive circuit experiences even minor parasitic inductance, the rapid dv/dt transition can couple back through the device’s Miller capacitance (CGD), generating a transient voltage spike on the gate. If this spike exceeds 1.5 V, it triggers a catastrophic spurious turn-on (shoot-through), potentially destroying the power stage. Conversely, if the gate driver overshoots beyond 6 V due to ringing, the gate permanently degrades.

Interfacing with heritage PWM controllers

Because dedicated rad-hard GaN-integrated drivers are still emerging, power engineers frequently pair discrete rad-hard GaN FETs with established, flight-proven rad-hard analog PWM controllers.

These heritage controllers were designed to drive the heavy, capacitive gates of silicon MOSFETs, delivering output swings from 0 V to 12 V or higher. Interfacing these high-voltage controllers with a delicate 5-V GaN gate requires a meticulously designed intermediate drive stage and layout discipline.

• Voltage clamping: Direct connection is catastrophic. Engineers must employ a high-speed level shifter or a dedicated, rad-hard gate driver buffer (for example, ISL71020M) that accepts standard PWM logic levels and provides a tightly regulated 5-V drive output.
• Asymmetric gate resistance (RG): The gate resistor network must be split into separate turn-on (Rgon) and turn-off (Rgoff) paths via a diode-resistor network. Rgon is optimized to purposefully slow down the turn-on dv/dt to suppress gate ringing. Rgoff is kept near 0 Ω to provide a low-impedance hold-down path, ensuring the gate remains firmly below the threshold voltage during rapid drain voltage transitions.
• Dead time management: GaN HEMTs lack a native body diode; so, they conduct in reverse through the channel when the gate is off. During this dead time, the reverse voltage drop (VSD) can be quite high (2 V to 3 V). If the PWM controller introduces excessive dead time, efficiency penalties from reverse conduction negate the switching advantages of GaN. Therefore, designers must utilize PWM controllers with highly precise programmable dead-time control or implement an external low-forward-drop Schottky diode in parallel.

In my years managing power electronics design, I have watched countless clean schematics fall apart under the oscilloscope simply because an engineer treated a fast wide-bandgap loop layout like a legacy 100-kHz silicon board.

When marrying a heritage 12-V PWM architecture to a 5-V gate, your layout must be an absolute work of art. Parasitic inductance can easily destroy the gate on the very first pulse if the loop area isn’t locked down.

Packaging innovation and real-world use cases

The unique performance GaN metrics are actively reshaping the size, weight, and power (SWaP) equation across various orbital profiles.

In satellite bus power, utilizing isolated GaN-based flyback or forward topologies allows engineers to push switching frequencies past 500 kHz—up from the standard 100 kHz legacy limit—directly translating to a 60% reduction in magnetics volume. In point-of-load (POL) converters, synchronous buck configurations supply core logic rails for spaceborne FPGAs and deep-space processing computers with near-zero reverse recovery losses. Furthermore, in space robotics and motor control, three-phase GaN inverter stages enable compact, motor-integrated electronics housings that bypass heavy shielded cabling.

To support these high-frequency applications, manufacturers have developed innovative, low-inductance packaging structures specifically engineered to eliminate the internal bond wires that cripple traditional high-reliability packages.

Vendor landscape and flight heritage

Navigating the space-qualified GaN marketplace requires examining components that meet the rigorous screening levels required for aerospace reliability. Below are three design case studies.

1. EPC Space

The EPC Space family of devices commands a long track record in commercial-volume rad-hard discrete GaN deployment. Its enhancement-mode (eGaN) discrete FETs (such as 60-V EPC7014) and integrated power modules have accumulated an impressive lineage, with thousands of devices actively operating in orbit since January 2019. These components are heavily utilized in LEO small-sat constellations and GEO communication platforms, powering intermediate bus converters and high-speed pulsed laser drivers for autonomous LiDAR systems.

Figure 1 EPC Space’s hermetic packaging replaces traditional wire bonds with broad, low-profile bottom contact pads to eliminate loop inductance. Source: EPC

2. Infineon Technologies

Infineon’s CoolGaN family represents the entry of traditional military-standard (MIL-PRF-19500) JANS-grade rigor into the wide-bandgap space ecosystem. Leveraging its heritage in spaceborne silicon MOSFETs, Infineon modernized GaN packaging by removing wire bonds entirely. It PowIR-SMD package delivers a 49% footprint reduction compared to legacy housings and reduces internal parasitic package inductance by 97%—dropping to a mere 0.1 nH. This nearly eliminates internal gate ringing, allowing clean interfacing with fast PWM controllers.

Figure 2 The PowIR-SMD technology minimizes internal parasitic inductance down to 0.1 nH via an advanced die-free construction. Source: Infineon

Regarding the validation of these advanced architectures, a high-reliability engineering expert at Infineon stated: “Removing internal wire bonds was the final frontier for GaN in space. By developing a die-free, surface-mount package like PowIR-SMD, we didn’t just solve thermal management—we completely neutralized the parasitic gate inductance that historically caused engineers to shy away from high-speed wide-bandgap switches in critical flight hardware.”

3. Renesas

Renesas entered the space-qualified GaN arena by executing a brilliant ecosystem play: combining its decades-long legacy of rad-hard analog power management with high-reliability GaN FETs like ISL73024SEH. These devices are frequently designed alongside dedicated multi-phase synchronous PWM controllers—such as the ISL73847SEH—to form the fundamental backbone of spaceborne core power bricks.

Figure 3 The Renesas/Intersil radiation-hardened GaN family is engineered in rugged, space-qualified ceramic flatpacks optimized for severe thermal environments. Source: Renesas

Achieving mission success

While designing deep space profiles, we must ruthlessly enforce gate-clamping rules. Designing radiation-hardened GaN converters for space applications is ultimately an exercise in managing extremes. GaN offers game-changing thermal and volumetric efficiencies, but its unforgiving gate drive margins and extreme switching speeds mandate a departure from legacy silicon layout rules.

The accumulated flight data from the GaN industry pioneers has rewritten the rulebook for space power systems, dispelling early engineering anxiety through years of anomaly-free orbital operation. When carefully controlled by a robust, rad-hard PWM controller, these devices provide a mature, predictable, and remarkably rugged path toward achieving unparalleled power density in the cosmos.

Bharrat Mehta, a senior space scientist, is former deputy project director of Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO).

 

 

Related Content

• GaN Transistor for Space Missions
• Infineon unveils rad-hard GaN transistors
• Deep Space Challenges Rad-Hard IC Development
• Test and Measurement Priorities for GaN-Based Power Electronics
• GaN in Space: Unlocking Efficiency and Performance in Satellite Systems

The post Rad-hard GaN converters: Design insights for space hardware appeared first on EDN.

Here is a look at my daily workshop setup for diagnosing, micro-soldering, and refurbishing batches of returned gaming gear and electronics. ​My main focus is on component-level fixes: replacing double-clicking microswitches, faulty wheel encoders, damaged PCB traces, connectors, and power components. Working with larger volumes requires keeping the workbench organized for fast diagnosis, desoldering, and full functional testing before reassembly. ​Always open to discussing repair techniques, equipment preferences, or diagnostic approaches for small electronics! submitted by /u/Accurate_Specific339 [link] [comments]

For first-half 2026, molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) system maker Riber S.A. of Bezons, France has reported revenue of €12.8m, up 19% on €10.7m in first-half 2025...

The RTC 27 Click board from Mikroe provides ultra-low-power timekeeping with alarm, watchdog, and timestamp functions. Based on the mikroBUS add-on board socket standard, it integrates the NXP PCF8525 nano-power CMOS real-time clock and calendar chip with an I2C interface. The board is the 2000th member of the Click family, enabling developers to quickly build proof-of-concept designs, prototypes, and embedded applications.

Using the PCF8525’s default temperature compensation engine and integrated temperature sensor, the RTC 27 Click corrects crystal frequency drift, achieving typical ±30-ppm accuracy across temperature and up to 5× better timekeeping than an uncompensated RTC design. It provides time and calendar information, including year, month, day, weekday, hour, minute, second, and 1/100 second.

The RTC 27 Click operates with 3.3-V and 5-V logic voltage levels, while the PCF8525 consumes a typical 64 nA in timekeeping mode with a 3.3-V supply. This makes the board well suited for battery-powered and always-on designs, including portable instruments, wearables, industrial systems, and IoT applications.

The RTC 27 Click is available from Mikroe and its distributors with single-unit pricing of $19.

RTC 27 Click product page 

Mikroe

The post Low-power RTC simplifies embedded timekeeping appeared first on EDN.

Voyager Wingman from Axelera AI is an AI-powered assistant that works with the Voyager Toolkit to accelerate AI application development. It enables developers to interact with the Voyager SDK and Axelera’s documentation using natural language to build, debug, and optimize AI inference pipelines. In internal testing, Wingman achieved 20% to 30% higher accuracy than general-purpose AI coding tools such as Claude Code.

Developing AI applications for dedicated hardware involves tasks such as model export and compilation, pipeline configuration, performance tuning, analytics, and output visualization. To streamline these workflows, Voyager Wingman focuses on four key areas:

• Application development. Natural language generation of computer vision pipelines, including AI models, pre-processing and post-processing steps, and multi-stage pipelines.
• Performance optimization. Recommendations for compiler settings and other optimizations to improve application performance on Axelera hardware.
• Debugging. Assistance with identifying and resolving configuration errors, device detection problems, and model compilation failures.
• Documentation assistance. Natural language access to information on supported operators, APIs, runtime behavior, and configuration syntax.

Voyager Wingman is available through the Axelera Developer Community and Customer Portal. The web-based chat service includes a free credit allowance for developers, while the standalone application is free with the developer’s own LLM API key. For more information, visit the Voyager SDK and Wingman page.

Axelera AI

The post AI assistant optimizes inference pipelines appeared first on EDN.

Rapidus and Cadence are collaborating to advance agentic AI for advanced SoC design and accelerate design turnaround time. The effort integrates the Cadence InnoStack AI Super Agent with the Rapidus AI-Agentic Design Solution (Raads), combining Cadence’s agentic AI orchestration technology with Rapidus’ AI-native design and manufacturing ecosystem for advanced-node semiconductors. According to Rapidus, the approach targets up to a 2× reduction in design turnaround time over conventional design flows.

Rapidus is extending its Raads AI-agentic design environment with the introduction of Raads Navigator and Raads Indicator to enhance quality assurance and help designers resolve design issues. Integrated with the InnoStack AI Super Agent, the new capabilities enable agentic design orchestration across key SoC workflows, automating and coordinating tasks from early architectural exploration through implementation and signoff. The integration allows teams to better manage advanced-node complexity and improve design predictability.

The InnoStack AI Super Agent is available from Cadence. Raads is part of Rapidus’ AI-native foundry ecosystem for customers developing advanced-node semiconductor designs.

Cadence

Rapidus

The post Rapidus, Cadence partner on agentic SoC AI appeared first on EDN.

Melexis has expanded its MLX90412 family of single-coil fan drivers with a device that provides smoother motor control for higher-power fans. Optimized for the cooling requirements of data center infrastructure, AI workstation GPUs, industrial power supplies, and home appliances, the MLX90412-D features code-free configuration via integrated I²C-programmable memory.

With a peak drive current of 2.2 A, the device supports fan designs up to approximately 18 W at 12 V and 35 W at 24 V. Its improved motor-control algorithm enables smooth start/stop operation, reduces acoustic noise, and extends fan lifetime. Revised proportional-integral (PI) regulation ensures stable operation even at very low speeds, while multiple start/stop profiles accommodate different application requirements.

By integrating a Hall sensor, motor controller, and driver in a single IC, the MLX90412-D provides an alternative to MCU-based discrete fan and pump control implementations. Configurable parameters include start-up profiles, speed curves, and FG/RD signal output options, allowing designers to fine-tune fan operation without firmware development.

Samples of the MLX90412-D in a 3.3-mm DFN10 package are available now.

MLX90412 product page

Melexis

The post Fan driver delivers smooth motor control appeared first on EDN.

Version 3.0 of Microchip’s VectorBlox Accelerator SDK simplifies FPGA-based AI implementation by supporting sparse neural networks. Available free of charge, the VectorBlox SDK and associated CoreVectorBlox IP form an integrated toolchain that streamlines the optimization, compilation, and deployment of convolutional neural network (CNN) models on PolarFire FPGA and SoC platforms.

Designed to scale across different model sizes and multiple AI workloads, VectorBlox enables customers to consolidate vision and sensor AI functions on a single low-power FPGA. Sparsity-based model compression reduces compute and memory requirements by skipping zero-valued operations, improving inference performance while lowering power consumption.

VectorBlox SDK 3.0 integrates with Microchip’s Libero SoC Design Suite and provides broad AI model support for TensorFlow, TensorFlow Lite, ONNX, and OpenVINO.

VectorBlox SDK product page 

Microchip Technology 

The post FPGA SDK enables sparse AI models appeared first on EDN.

КПІ посилює антикорупційну роботу під час вступної кампанії 2026 kpi ср, 07/22/2026 - 16:40

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

Молоді науковиці КПІ завершили міжнародну літню інженерну програму у Франції KPI4U-1 ср, 07/22/2026 - 15:01

Convert a 4-20 mA signal to 0-20mA and deliver it to a grounded load with no additional power supply needed.

Recently, EDN kindly published a design of mine for a micropower 4-20 to 0-20mA current loop converter. Shortly thereafter, in the grand tradition of the Design Idea circuit collaboration kitchen, also-frequent contributor Jayapal Ramalingam made a (challenging!) suggestion. He commented that the design might be more useful if, instead of needing an (albeit very small) local power supply, it was revised so as to need no local supply at all.  It was a good point.

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

The challenging part, of course, was that this meant the converter would have to run solely from power stolen (more or less invisibly, hence “phantom”) from the same 4-20mA signal it was working to convert.  Sneaky.  And tricky. I puzzled over JR’s intriguing suggestion until (eventually) a possible solution emerged from my muddled mental mist.  Figure 1 shows the outcome of my foggy fancy: a “phantom power” converter:

Figure 1 In this circuit, the 4-20mA input current is converted to a 0-20mA output while relying solely and exclusively on the input current for (phantom) power. Power-theft-related error is minimized by recycling the same 100µA that runs the opamps to also bias precision voltage reference Z2.  Asterisk’d resistors are 0.5% or better.

Here’s how it works. Comparisons of Figure 1 to the circuit in the earlier design:

reveal many obvious similarities, but a critical difference (other than no power supply in the “current” case) is how the precision shunt voltage reference is biased.  In the prior circuit, since it runs from a constant local supply voltage, a simple resistor sufficed.  But here, if we assume a 34v range of acceptable loop supply, the 80µA required by the TLV431 at 6v could become 900µA at 40v, creating a cringe-worthy (and likely unacceptable) ~5% conversion error.  Yikes!

Current recycling, however, improves accuracy of the conversion function to Iout = 1.249(Iin – 4mA)  = 0 to 19.9mA as Iin = 7 to 20mA.  The malingering 0.5% of full-scale error is the penalty paid for phantom power.  After all, active devices, by definition, must be fed.  And while 0.5% accuracy isn’t quite phantasmagorical, maybe it’ll do.

Other picky phantom phacts include the IR LED wired in series with Q2’s emitter.  It’s not there to make light, which we couldn’t see anyway, but rather to use its 1v minimum forward voltage to help accommodate A2’s ~200mV minimum output that sits atop Z2’s 1.24v.  Likewise dictated by opamp limitations is the boost of R1 to 249 ohms and its minimum sensed voltage to 1v. This accommodates the 2244’s common mode topping out at 900mv below the positive rail.

In conclusion, thanks JR!

Stephen Woodward‘s relationship with EDN’s DI column goes back quite a long way. Over 200 submissions have been accepted since his first contribution back in 1974.  They have included best Design Idea of the year in 1974 and 2001.

Related Content

• 4mA-20mA to 0mA-20mA converter’s current mirror drives grounded load
• Triple-duty current loop calibrator
• Double-duty current loop transmitter
• Full circle current loops: 4mA-20mA to 0mA-20mA

The post Current converter performs purely on paltry phantom power appeared first on EDN.

A cautionary tale in two photos: beeper removal and GF problems I have an AC that's triggered with an IR remote. Each time you do an action: it beeps. I also automated the AC with an IR transmitter and an ESP32. I wanted the AC to turn off at temp, and turn back on when it's over temp. But that would mean beeps at 3AM?? I hate that so I used pliers to rip it off. No more beep, yay! This wasn't an issue until my girlfriend turned on the AC with the remote. She complained that there was no feedback for the button presses. (Ok, she actually said, "I don't like that it doesn't beep!" which is complaining about no feedback.) So I, intrepid hardware modder that I am (I just search a bunch,) I decided to have an artificial beep from speakers (They still aren't installed). So I took apart the split AC again, and soldered to the leads of the buzzer I ripped off. That goes though various resistors and a optocoupler until it gets to an ESP32. That reports a beep was done. Optocoupler was stolen from an old cheap USB power supply. (THIS is why you should horde old PSU's and other PCBs) Except... no voltage from the beeper. Or, really, I was getting a ton of it. Or none? It's been a while, but I was on a goose chase because of the two leads off of the buzzer remains. (Also using the wrong AC ground rather than the DC ground) I hunted around, trying to find what controlled the buzzer, thinking I found it i ripped off the component... that provides 5V to the board. (You can see it re-soldered on there, second photo.) Good news: I DID find the pad that controlled the buzzer. It's on the micro controller that's above the buzzer there. Bad news: too small to solder to when I'm standing on a desk reaching up to the split AC's mainboard that's still screwed in. After an hour I finally realized: The buzzer must be the problem, I pull off the plastic remains... and one of the leads was disconnected from the board from when I snapped it off with pliers. I was trying to trace the leads to find the mosfet that controlled it, and learned some more things about PCBs... but I could have just soldered directly to the pads of the PCB. So, now I have a place in Home Assistant for when I finally DO install the speaker in the room, there will be a chime when my GF turns on the AC manually, and no chime when the AC turns off/on automatically via the IR ESP32. Except it's redundant because none of the code has found a use for the beep function (It just caused more problems,) I'm going to move the IR transmitter to this ESP32 installed inside the AC itself, so I won't need confirmation... and the next project is a custom AC controller for the GF that will make this extra redundant. (I can have a chime still... but it would directly trigger from her pressing the buttons, not from the AC itself.) Also I made this post because someone else asked a question showing off their fail and deleted their post, and I wanted them to know they aren't alone with their hate of beepers and doing dumb things to boards. (Ok but stabbing the beeper with a soldering iron is a step too far! Use pliers like a civilized man.) submitted by /u/EmailLinkLost [link] [comments]

it's open source at https://github.com/darshg321/bench i have a ton of hardware laying around, and didn't want to just use a spreadsheet to organize it so i used this! it has a bunch of hardware pre-catalogued so you can simply use the dropdown, and use ai to get images from web pages or find the specs. hope this is useful! submitted by /u/paulsimpngl [link] [comments]