Збирач потоків

З днем народження, Альма-матер! KPI4U-2 пн, 08/31/2026 - 12:00

Cirkit Designer is an AI-powered platform for designing, simulating, and prototyping electronic circuits, supporting popular boards like Arduino, ESP32, and Raspberry Pi with a real-time simulator and a library of over 30,000 components.

What’s new?

Texas Instruments (TI) today introduced the industry’s first multiaxial coreless Hall-effect current sensor designed for all hybrid electric vehicle and electric vehicle (HEV/EV) traction inverter applications. The TMCS2100-Q1 sensor offers a first-of-its-kind approach to current sensing through the combination of multiaxial measurement and a proprietary algorithm, eliminating the trade-off between precision and system size in traction inverter designs.

While existing coreless solutions are limited to single-axis measurements, the TMCS2100-Q1 sensor is the first to measure magnetic fields in both horizontal and vertical directions. This multiaxial measurement is 20 times more accurate than single-axis alternatives, achieving displacement error of less than 1% at 0.4mm movement and as low as 0.25% at 0.1mm. This level- of precision improves the EV powertrain torque control loop, maximizing efficiency and power delivery across varying load and thermal conditions.

“For the first time, engineers have a Hall-effect current sensor that breaks through the limitations of existing solutions, which is especially critical as 800V architectures raise the bar for traction inverter accuracy,” said Jason Cole, vice president and general manager, Sensing Products at TI. “Leveraging advanced research from TI’s Kilby Labs – our advanced R&D engine – the TMCS2100-Q1 was developed to give automakers a tool to build HEVs and EVs where tighter current measurement translates directly into longer range, smoother ride quality and more efficient motor control.”

Why does it matter?

Automakers are continuously looking to make traction inverters lighter and more efficient to extend driving range and enhance vehicle performance. Traditional measurement approaches present designers with a fundamental trade-off:

• Solutions with a magnetic core – or C-core implementations – deliver accuracy but add size and weight.
• Coreless alternatives are smaller but compromise precision due to displacement error and magnetic crosstalk.

TI’s current sensing technology addresses this trade-off by:

• Measuring both axes simultaneously: vibration during vehicle operation creates movement between the sensor and conductor, causing single-axis, differential coreless sensors to lose accuracy. The TMCS2100-Q1 sensor significantly reduces vibration-induced error by measuring magnetic fields in both horizontal and vertical axes at once.
• Maintaining accuracy: reducing error and maintaining accurate current measurement minimizes magnetic crosstalk influence and torque ripple, a cause of jerky acceleration, motor noise and inefficient operation that reduces range.

By eliminating the magnetic core without sacrificing precision, the TMCS2100-Q1 sensor enables smaller, more power-dense traction inverter designs, helping automakers build EVs that are more efficient, longer-range and more enjoyable to drive. This device is the latest innovation in TI’s automotive portfolio, demonstrating our continued investment in addressing customer challenges throughout the entire vehicle.

The post TI Debuts New Approach to Current Sensing for Unprecedented Accuracy in HEV and EV Traction Inverter Designs appeared first on ELE Times.

Rohde & Schwarz has announced the launch of a new AI/ML Design centre, as the technology giant prepares for the next step towards chip design within its existing Bengaluru facility. For the first time, this new design centre will bring dedicated artificial intelligence, machine learning, and future chip design capability to the campus. The announcement was made by Christian Leicher, President & CEO of Rohde & Schwarz.

The expansion will add a specialised space focused on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and advanced chipset design. The company expects to create several new hi-tech roles over the next 2-3 years. Commenting on the development, Leicher said, “India is a key part of our long-term global strategy. With this expansion, we’re investing directly in the country’s exceptional young talent in AI, machine learning, and semiconductor design—talent we believe will shape our technology roadmap for years to come.”

AI/ML Design Centre: Boosting Indigenous Prowess

The centre reflects Rohde & Schwarz’s own ‘Make in India, for the world’ approach to technology development—drawing on the country’s deep pool of AI/ML and semiconductor engineering talent to design AI/ML solutions and chips in India for the company’s global business. Solutions designed by engineers in Bengaluru will support Rohde & Schwarz products across divisions worldwide, positioning India not just as a market the company serves, but as a source of engineering for its global product line. This expansion adds to Rohde & Schwarz India’s growing team of over 500 employees.

The expansion builds on Rohde & Schwarz’s established engineering presence in Bengaluru and is one of the company’s two R&D centres in India alongside New Delhi. Both centres focus on advanced wireless communication, test and measurement, and secure communication solutions. With the new AI/ML Design Center and preparations for chip design activities, Bengaluru adds silicon-level design capability to its existing R&D work, bringing chip development and systems engineering closer together on the same campus. This initiative strengthens a portfolio that already spans Rohde & Schwarz India’s core businesses.

Rohde & Schwarz India: Attaining Technological and Digital Sovereignty

Rohde & Schwarz is striving for a safer and connected world with its Test & Measurement, Technology Systems and Networks & Cybersecurity Divisions. For over nine decades, the global technology supplier has developed cutting-edge technologies, with the company’s leading-edge products and solutions empowering industrial, regulatory and government customers.

Rohde & Schwarz India Pvt. Ltd is a 100% owned subsidiary of Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co KG. The company’s head office is in New Delhi with branch offices in Bengaluru, Hyderabad and Mumbai. R&S India has made significant investments to strengthen its local application support, repair, and calibration capabilities, while also establishing state-of-the-art R&D centres in Bengaluru and New Delhi focused on developing advanced solutions in wireless communications, test and measurement, and electronic warfare.

The company operates an ISO 9001:2015-certified Quality Management System and maintains an ISO/IEC 17025 (A2LA) accredited calibration laboratory, demonstrating its strong commitment to quality, technical excellence, and internationally recognised service standards. The company continuously invests in training and development of its personnel, ensuring a high level of technical competence across pre- and post-sales support to its customers. For more information about Rohde & Schwarz India and its innovative solutions, visit https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/in

Press Contacts:

India: Anitha Nambiar (phone: +91 11 42535400; email: anitha.nambiar@rohde-schwarz.com)

Europe (headquarters): Katrin Wehle (phone: +49 89 4129 11378; email: press@rohde-schwarz.com)

Asia Pacific: Sze Ming Ng (phone: +603 5569 0011; email: press.apac@rohde-schwarz.com)

Contact for readers: www.rohde-schwarz.com/contact

The post Rohde & Schwarz Reinforces ‘Make in India, for the World’ Commitment, Announces Launch of AI/ML Design Centre appeared first on ELE Times.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. today announced that it has expanded its portfolio of Automotive Grade common mode chokes with four new surface-mount devices designed to improve system efficiency while saving board space. Offered in compact case sizes, the Vishay Dale ICM5050-A, ICM6050-A, IFLN-1210BE-A, and IFLN-1812CZ-A combine low DCR with high current capability and impedance.

Offering high temperature operation up to +150 °C, the AEC-Q200 qualified devices released today provide noise suppression and filtering for DC/DC power supplies, LCD displays, lighting drivers, in-vehicle Ethernet networks, and battery powered devices. While toroidal common mode chokes typically provide DCR of 23 mΩ, the ICM5050-A, ICM6050-A, IFLN-1210BE-A, and IFLN-1812CZ-A offer low DCR from 0.4 mΩ to 12 mΩ to reduce power losses and increase efficiency in these applications.

The ICM5050-A and ICM6050-A are wirewound ferrite common mode chokes that offer high current capabilities up to 11 A in the 5050 case size and 14 A in the 6050 case size. With footprints of 12.0 mm x 11.0 mm x 6.0 mm and 15.0 mm x 13.0 mm x 6.0 mm, respectively, the devices can save board space by replacing larger toroidal common mode chokes, which typically measure 19 mm x 30 mm x 28 mm.

The IFLN-1210BE-A and IFLN-1812CZ-A are ferrite common mode chokes with precision winding. The devices provide excellent common mode impedance up to 11 kΩ at 100 MHz in the compact 1210 and 1812 case sizes, making them ideal for suppressing EMI noise in CAN, LAN, and automotive DC/DC converters.

RoHS-compliant, halogen-free, and Vishay Green, all four devices are suitable for reflow soldering and compatible with automated pick and place assembly.

Device Specification Table:

Part #		ICM5050-A	ICM6050-A	IFLN-1210BE-A	IFLN-1812CZ-A
Common mode impedance typ. (Ω)	@ 10 MHz	160 to 850	40 to 80	550 to 5100	600 to 5800
	@ 100 MHz	500 to 1700	300 to 700	2200 to 11 000	4000 to 5200
Inductance (µH)		—	—	11 to 100	11 to 100
DCR max. (mΩ)		4 to 12	3.5 to 5	0.4 to 1.5	0.6 to 2
Heat rating current typ. (A)		5.5 to 11(¹)	10 to 14(¹)	0.150 to 0.300(²)	0.200 to 0.360(²)
Case size		5050	6050	1210	1812
Dimensions (mm)		12.0 x 11.0 x 6.0	15.0 x 13.0 x 6.0	3.2 x 2.5 x 2.5	4.5 x 3.2 x 3.0
Operating temp. (°C)		-40 to +125	-40 to +125	-55 to +150	-55 to +150

 

(1) DC current (A) that will cause an approximate ΔT of 40 °C

(2) DC current (A) that will cause an approximate ΔT of 20 °C

The post Vishay Intertechnology Automotive Grade Ferrite Common Mode Chokes Save Board Space While Increasing Efficiency appeared first on ELE Times.

Electric linear actuators (ELAs) turn intention into motion—precise, predictable, and quietly powerful. This guide offers elementary notes and practical pointers on their basics and everyday use. Let’s begin with a quick distinction: linear actuators are broadly categorized into integrated, application-specific units and modular, high-performance industrial assemblies.

In its simplest form, an electric linear actuator is a compact device that converts electrical energy into straight-line motion by using a motor to drive a lead screw, ball screw, belt, or gear assembly. This design enables quiet, precise push, pull, lift, or positioning tasks. Unlike hydraulic and pneumatic systems that rely on fluid pressure, electric actuators are valued for their plug-and-play simplicity and self-contained construction.

Moving beyond everyday consumer units brings us to heavy-duty industrial electromechanical actuators. While the underlying physics is identical, industrial-grade assemblies are engineered for demanding environments. They incorporate robust external limit switches to prevent over-travel under massive loads, and precise sensor-driven feedback systems—such as optical encoders or resolvers—that continuously monitor position to enable closed-loop control.

In practice, standard integrated designs are most relevant to consumer automation and light duty cycles, while modular, high-performance systems provide the customizable, feedback-rich precision required for heavy-duty factory automation. By focusing mostly on plug-and-play linear actuators, this guide highlights the approachable designs that make automation not only practical but also empowering for everyday innovators.

Figure 1 Mini electric linear actuators facilitate makers and engineers with a self-contained, ready-to-mount solution for converting rotational motion into linear force. Source: Author

Electric linear actuators: Framing the basics

To appreciate how these actuators empower everyday automation, it helps to start with their core anatomy and working principles. At its heart, an electric linear actuator is a bridge between rotation and translation.

By transforming the circular force of a motor into a steady linear stroke, these devices achieve precise straight-line movement. The primary components of an ELA include an electric motor (the power source), a lead screw or ball screw (the mechanical converter), a drive nut that travels along the shaft, and a gearbox to optimize torque and speed.

Also, most modern electric linear actuators—even the basic models—include a built-in potentiometer. This feature provides precise position feedback, simplifying monitoring and control while ensuring accurate alignment across diverse applications. Together, these elements form a compact system that turns electrical intent into reliable mechanical motion, making automation not only practical but also accessible to routine groundbreakers.

Figure 2 An ELA with an integrated potentiometer enables precise position control by continuously tracking movement across its range. Source: Author

Extending from the actuator’s anatomy, most ELAs incorporate integrated limit switches. These built-in safeguards automatically halt motion at preset travel points, preventing over-extension and protecting both the actuator and the system it serves. In modular or industrial designs, external limit switches may be added for greater flexibility, but in everyday plug-and-play units, their quiet presence ensures dependable, safe operation.

By blending built-in safeguards with straightforward design, electric linear actuators embody the balance of reliability and simplicity that makes everyday automation both safe and accessible.

Internal circuitry and control methods of ELAs

Now let’s look at the basic internal circuitry of a typical ELA equipped with a potentiometer. The potentiometer delivers a resistance or voltage signal as positional feedback, which can be fed into an external controller, such as an Arduino, for precise and reliable motion control.

Within the actuator, two limit switches automatically cut power at the end of the stroke to ensure safe operation. The diodes then allow the actuator to reverse direction, backing away from the engaged limit switch without risk of over-travel.

Figure 3 Here is the basic internal circuitry of an ELA with its integrated potentiometer for feedback and limit switches for stroke-end protection. Source: Author

These ELAs can be driven directly from a suitable DC supply. Applying one polarity extends the actuator, while reversing the polarity retracts it. In simple applications, this can be accomplished with a DPDT switch that manually flips the supply polarity. For more advanced control, an H‑Bridge circuit is used to handle polarity reversal electronically, enabling seamless integration with MCUs and allowing programmable, automated motion sequences.

Beyond the basic designs, advanced ELAs are available with integrated controllers that simplify wiring and expand control possibilities. These models support a variety of industry-standard interfaces, including 0–5 V mode for straightforward analog positioning, 4–20 mA mode for robust industrial signal transmission, RC servo mode for hobbyist and robotics applications, and PWM mode for precise digital control. Such versatility allows these actuators to be tailored to diverse environments, ranging from simple automation tasks to complex, microcontroller-driven systems.

As a practical example, the L12‑I series from Actuonix demonstrates how advanced models integrate internal position controllers. These linear actuators can directly accept position commands, which they then follow without the need for external circuitry. To suit different applications, they support multiple input modes—including 0–5 V analog, 4–20 mA current loop, RC servo signals, and PWM control—offering flexibility across hobbyist, industrial, and embedded system environments.

Figure 4 Demonstrating micro linear actuators with embedded position controllers that accept external commands and follow them precisely. Source: Actuonix

Engineer’s checklist: Design insights for ELA selection

When selecting an electric linear actuator, engineers weigh several key specifications that define performance and suitability for the application. For a start, dynamic force indicates the actuator’s ability to move a load while in motion, while static force reflects its holding capacity when stopped.

Speed (inches/second) determines how quickly the actuator can extend or retract, often balanced against load requirements. The duty cycle specifies how long the actuator can operate relative to rest periods, critical for avoiding overheating. Stroke length defines the maximum travel distance, and the IP rating (for example, IP66) ensures protection against dust and water ingress for harsh environments.

Electrical input—whether DC or AC—and the maximum current draw influence compatibility with power systems. Mechanical details such as clevis-end diameter affect mounting and integration. Finally, limit switches, either internal factory-preset or external, provide end-of-travel control and safeguard against overextension.

Beyond mechanical and electrical parameters, actuator selection also depends on control and interface compatibility. Options include analog signals (0–10 V or 4–20 mA) for proportional control, digital I/O for simple extend/retract commands, and PLC interfaces for automation environments. Advanced models may support bus-based protocols like CANopen or Modbus, enabling precise synchronization and monitoring.

In addition, potentiometer feedback—whether linear type and built-in or external—provides position lookup and monitoring, ensuring precise control and seamless integration with automation systems. Together, these specifications and interface options ensure the actuator not only meets load and speed requirements but also integrates seamlessly into the broader control architecture of the application.

Figure 5 An optical feedback linear actuator datasheet snippet highlights its specifications. Source: Firgelli Automations

Extend–retract: Closing the loop

From factory automation to medical devices to renewable energy systems and even smart home solutions, electric linear actuators prove their versatility in delivering controlled, reliable motion. Their practicality is not just in the datasheet; it’s in the hands of engineers who design systems around them and makers who adapt them to solve real-world challenges, turning specifications into productivity and innovation.

This blog has walked through the essentials, but the field stretches far wider than what I have outlined here. What I have covered is a starting point. If you see an application, parameter, or design cue I missed—fill it in. Your insights will enrich this guide and help shape a more complete, practical resource for the engineering community.

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

• DIY Linear Actuator Controller
• Programmable driver targets piezoelectric actuators
• Senseg unveils breakthrough flexible actuator technology
• ALPS: Piezoelectric actuator has very compact dimensions
• Compact electric actuators provide unlimited rotary motion

The post Driving motion: A practical guide to electric linear actuators appeared first on EDN.

Arduino UNO Q pairs a Qualcomm Linux processor with an STM32 real-time microcontroller on the classic UNO form factor, bringing AI and edge computing to the maker community.

Learn how to build a Bluetooth-controlled fire truck using the Arduino UNO R4 Minima board, an HC-05 module, and a water pump. This step-by-step guide covers components, assembly, programming, and testing.

An overview of Arduino's evolution from an open-source maker project to a complete family of single-board computers used in industrial and professional settings, with a look at the main board families and a dedicated white paper.

I know my soldering needs some work, but it works as expected. My gf has this cheap lint remover that was wired directly with a usb A cable. I wanted to make it wireless and also add the option to work while plugged in to charge. I used a TP4056 for charging and an XL3608 to boost to 5v. I added a AO3401 MOSFET to switch between usb and battery power seamlessly. Here is my post asking r/AskElectronics if it will work, it includes a Falstad schematic and a diagram (with visuals) that makes more sense for me. I ended up removing the 1000uf capacitor as it was bogging down the boost converter on startup. Other than that my (With some help from Gemini) design works perfectly. submitted by /u/JJPortal [link] [comments]

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

Espressif has announced the ESP32-E22, its first Wi-Fi 6E SoC designed as a radio co-processor for high-performance connected devices, featuring tri-band Wi-Fi 6E, Bluetooth dual-mode, and a dual-core RISC-V processor.

This article shows how to drive a large WS2812B LED ring with a Raspberry Pi Pico or Pico 2, creating festive light effects and even using the ring as a low-resolution display.

Discover Angelo, an open source portable audio amplifier designed to improve communication with elderly or hearing-impaired people. This project combines simple electronics with a human-centered approach, making it easy to build, customize, and use.

A antenna tuner circuit which incorporates the resistance of the panel meter light into the accuracy of the meter. One must wonder why they would do this. They no longer support this unit so the bulb is hard to find. It is an axial lead bulb much like a axial lead resistor. I could replace the bulb with a resistor that is the same ohms as the bulb, I suppose. No back lit meter then but at least the meter would work again. Dumb design. submitted by /u/RefrigeratorLess9786 [link] [comments]

Чеська компанія RSE відкрила в КПІ ім. Ігоря Сікорського Energy Resilience Lab з обладнанням MWM Київ, 27 серпня 2026 року KPI4U-2 пт, 08/28/2026 - 16:29

submitted by /u/Dr-Double-A [link] [comments]

A zonal power distribution network for cars offers many benefits, but how it affects finding problems is unclear.

In the few years, I’ve been seeing a lot of stories about zonal architecture, the next stage in the evolution of providing power to the many dispersed automotive-electronics functions. This architecture is increasingly being designed into cars for many solid technical reasons.

What is a zonal architecture? I won’t do a deep dive into details, as it has been discussed in detail in EDN and elsewhere. In short, it divides the car’s power distribution network (PDN) along geographic zones, each with a regional power controller, and all supplied by a central power controller and the car batteries. Each of these regional controllers provides power to the local regulators of individual modules in the car – cars now typically have over a hundred of these, permeating and managing every nook and cranny.

On the face of it, zonal makes a lot of sense with respect to weight, cabling complexity, power-systems management, and many other critical factors. This is especially the case as the siting and number of zones can be adjusted to fit the vehicle arrangement (Figure 1).

Figure 1 A zonal architecture assigns a controller (power manager) to different physical areas of the car, and the number and placement of these zones is flexible. (Image source: EV Engineering Online)

It is a radical departure from its predecessor, usually called a domain or centralized architecture (Figure 2). In that classic arrangement which has been used for decades, power distribution is not determined by the physical or spatial location of loads in the car, but rather the function of the module(s) being supported. For example, the four power windows might have a single power unit for all four windows (and maybe the trunk release) with DC rail cabling running to all these locations.

Figure 2 In the widely used domain architecture, controllers are assigned to cover one or more related functions (left); in the zonal approach, the controller division is by physical location the vehicle. (Image source: EETimes Asia)

The domain architecture was the second stage in this evolution. It was the successor to tried-and-true distributed power, which is conceptually the simplest and made a lot of sense in cars when there were relatively few electrical loads.

Distributed power is clear: each load, such as the radio, lights, starter motor, or dashboard, has a direct connection to the battery (regulators were largely non-existent) with a simple on/off switch for that loop (there might be an intermediate relay for higher-current loads). Each loop and load was physically and electrically separate and independent of all the others.

This arrangement made it easy to add loads or disconnect them. Even better, when the car was off – meaning the physical key was out of the ignition – there was zero vampire drain. The only drain on the battery was its self-drain of around a few percent per month.

Why I’m intrigued by the zonal architecture

I’ve been especially interested in the promised benefits of zonal control since I have had a run of electrical problems in my basic ICE 2019 Subaru Outback with 60,000 miles. This car predates zonal distribution, and even uses tangible buttons (networked, of course) for most functions such as A/C; the touch screen is only for secondary functions such as radio, map, and housekeeping (you can drive the car without problem even if that screen blanks out.)

I’ve had these three problems, directly or indirectly related to “vampire drain”:

1. First, the car’s 3G transponder, formally called a Telematics Data Communication Module (TDCM or DCM), kept trying to connect to that service, thus killing the battery. The problem is that 3G is being “sunsetted”, so nearby towers were going dark, and it was trying to link up with a non-existent service (or what if it was in an underground garage?). It kept trying and trying, killing the battery since I didn’t start the car for a few days. The dealer replaced the module free of charge for this known but kept-quiet design flaw.
2. Then, a module that controls power flow to other modules when the car is nominally off malfunctioned and allowed too much vampire current to flow. Again, the module was replaced at no cost to me, but not until I had to jump-start the car.
3. Finally, the door-lock module malfunctioned, and I could only get into the car using the mechanical key that comes with the electronic key fob. While that would be a major annoyance, the added problem was that in this fault mode, the module continued to drain excessive power, again killing the battery.

Yet in all the talk about the zonal architecture, I have seen barely any mention of how it impacts electrical-system troubleshooting. Will it make it easier, harder, or very difficult?

Speaking as a car owner – not as a designer or manufacturer – that’s an important issue.  As cars get more complicated electrically with mandated features, enhanced drive-train control (where ICE, EV, or hybrid), ADAS functions, and more “smarts”, dealing with something that is no longer working can be an impressive challenge leading to quick, easy, and incorrect answers.

How so? When I brought my car to the dealer for each of the three problems with the symptom “dead battery,” the service tech checked the charging system, saw that was good, and so assumed it had to be a bad battery (each time replaced under warranty). Yet the real problems were those load modules drawing vampire current for various reasons.

What’s my user-side concern?

I’m not at all saying that the zonal architecture is a bad thing or a step backwards. I am only observing the extent to which its proponents – all very credible people – have focused almost entirely on its design/build impact and not discussed any in-the-field troubleshooting considerations.

I’ve been burned before by this scenario, and so I get a little worried when proponents of a new architecture or technology talk almost exclusively about its virtues but ignore discussion of any drawbacks. As engineers, we know that nearly every design decision involves pros and cons with respect to overall performance, weight, efficiency, manufacturability, and cost, and these have to be weighed against each other. Nearly every advance also has some downside ranging from trivial to a somewhat bigger deal.

This happened with USB-C and USB-PD (Power Delivery): whatever your requirements within its large power-range “envelope”, USB-C in conjunction with USB-PD is posited as the “universal” solution. Yet experience has shown that such broad, all-encompassing solutions can get a little too clever for themselves, as they try to accommodate so many use cases and scenarios. There are so many power-interconnect arrangements and possibilities, with so many variations, that many cannot be anticipated, tested, or validated despite a detailed standard. USB-C and USB-PD embed the opposite of the engineer’s top rule: keep it simple.

I expressed my concerns about USB-C and USB-PD in a recent EDN blog and received some supporting comments (USB-C and Power Delivery: Too much of a good thing?). As further confirmation, my colleague, EDN’s Associate and Contributing Editor Brian Dipert – who has much more hands-on experience in power interconnects and related – expressed similar concerns along with evidence (USB-C’s lingering incompatibilities and other complexities, part 1: Direct-connect complications and USB-C’s lingering incompatibilities and complexities, part 2: Splitter issues).

My question is simple: what’s the impact of the zonal architecture on troubleshooting? Will service technicians be further confused by its intricacies? Alternatively, is there evidence showing it will actually ease the troubleshooting problem, given the huge number of loads that the vehicle power subsystem must support along with their interconnection via various in-car networks?

I’m not an anti-advances person, but I do sometimes long wistfully for the early days of cars (and other products) when each load was on its own circuit from the battery, and you could troubleshoot most electrical problems with a schematic diagram and multimeter to read voltages, currents, and resistances. There’s a lot to be said for this type of directness and simplicity, that’s for sure, even though I know it’s not coming back.

Do you have any insight or thoughts about zonal architecture and eventual need for troubleshooting?

References:

• 48V zonal architecture made easy using power modules, Vicor Corp
• Zonal Electrical Architectures Cut Vehicle Wiring-System Cost, Complexity, TE Connectivity (via Tech Briefs)
• Zonal Architecture 101: Reducing Vehicle System Development Complexity, On Semiconductor
• Zonal Architecture vs. Domain Architecture: Modular Automotive Infrastructure Face Off, Molex LLC
• SDV Series Episode 2: From Domains to Zones , Keysight Technologies
• Zonal Wiring Architecture Will Make EVs Easier to Assemble, Assembly Magazine/BNP Media
• The hidden car revolution: zonal architecture, ST Microelectronics
• How a Zone Architecture Paves the Way to a Fully Software-Defined Vehicle, Texas Instruments

—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 and signal conditioning, and wired and wireless communication links. His work experience includes many years at Analog Devices in applications and marketing, and he also developed significant mechanical-engineering insight while designing control electronics for large materials-testing systems.

Related Content

• Accelerating the shift to next-gen SDVs with zonal MCUs
• Automotive Architecture

The post How will zonal architecture impact automotive troubleshooting? appeared first on EDN.

For decades, semiconductor progress trained us to think about scaling in a particular way. Make the fundamental building block smaller, increase density, improve performance, and integrate more functionality into the same physical space. However, an optical interconnect doesn’t have an equivalent scaling mechanism.

There is no single optical knob that can simply be turned generation after generation to deliver the bandwidth required by future AI and HPC systems. Instead, optical systems have advanced by combining multiple dimensions:

• Higher baud rates
• More wavelengths
• More fibers
• More spatial channels
• Higher-order modulation
• Stronger DSP and FEC
• Better photonic integration
• Shorter electrical reach
• Co-packaged and near-package optics

Each contributes another part of the bandwidth equation. But increasingly, no single one appears capable of carrying the scaling trajectory alone. That changes the nature of the problem.

So, the next generation may be defined less by one component becoming dramatically faster and more by how many different scaling mechanisms can be made to work together in one physical system.

One channel can only be pushed so far

The most direct way to increase bandwidth is to increase the rate of a single channel. That approach has worked repeatedly. But higher serial rates progressively tighten nearly every part of the link, and as a result, electrical insertion loss becomes more difficult, jitter budgets shrink, and equalization becomes more aggressive.

Moreover, modulators require greater bandwidth, photodetectors must respond faster, and signal-to-noise margin becomes harder to preserve. Consequently, digital signal processing (DSP) complexity increases, power rises, and thermal density grows with it.

At some point, simply making one lane faster becomes increasingly expensive in power, margin, latency, or implementation complexity. So, another dimension is introduced: instead of one faster channel, use more channels.

When parallelism becomes difficult, add wavelengths. When wavelength count becomes constrained, add spatial paths. When raw signal quality becomes insufficient, add more sophisticated modulation, DSP, and coding. Each mechanism extends aggregate bandwidth, but each one also adds another architectural dependency.

Wavelength becomes a scaling dimension

Wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) allows multiple optical carriers to share the same physical path. That is an extraordinarily powerful scaling mechanism. Instead of increasing fiber count every time capacity increases, multiple channels can be carried simultaneously on one fiber or waveguide.

However, wavelength scaling is not free bandwidth. Lasers must remain within controlled operating windows, and filters and resonant structures must maintain appropriate spectral relationships. Otherwise, temperature can shift wavelength and process variation can shift device behavior, so control and calibration may become necessary.

More channels increase characterization and test complexity. Therefore, WDM increases aggregate bandwidth while simultaneously introducing additional thermal, process, control, and manufacturing requirements. Therefore, while the optical capacity increases, so does the architectural requirements needed to sustain it.

Space becomes another dimension

When wavelength or serial scaling is insufficient, physical parallelism becomes another option. There are more fibers, fiber arrays, and waveguides. Then there are parallel optical engines, multicore fiber, and spatial-division multiplexing.

Again, capacity can increase significantly, but physical parallelism creates another set of challenges. For instance, alignment becomes more demanding while connector density increases. Also, fiber attach becomes more complex, and package escape becomes more difficult.

As a result, assembly tolerances tighten and test channel count increases. Furthermore, yield can become increasingly sensitive to the number of optical paths that must all operate correctly.

How modulation and coding extend the channel

When the raw physical channel cannot be improved enough, more information can be extracted from it. Here, higher-order modulation places more information into each symbol and DSP compensates for impairments. Next, forward error correction (FEC) allows operation in regimes that historically would have produced unacceptable error rates.

These techniques are remarkable examples of engineering overcoming physical constraints. But they also move complexity into other parts of the system. For instance, more DSP consumes power, more sophisticated modulation usually requires greater signal quality and control, and FEC can introduce latency.

Also, transmitters and receivers become more complex and characterization becomes more difficult. So, system performance becomes increasingly dependent on the combined behavior of optics, electronics, algorithms, power delivery, and thermal conditions. At that point, the link is no longer simply an optical-device problem; it’s an architectural issue.

Electrical and optical scaling getting coupled

This becomes especially important as optical engines move closer to compute. Traditional pluggable optics created a relatively clear boundary. The electrical system drives the module, the module performs electrical-to-optical conversion, and the fiber carries the signal.

As bandwidth rises, however, the electrical path between the processor, switch, or accelerator and the optical module becomes increasingly costly. Board loss rises, SerDes power increases, and equalization becomes more demanding. In short, electrical reach begins consuming a growing fraction of the system power budget.

That is one reason near-package optics (NPO) and co-packaged optics (CPO) are receiving so much attention. Shortening the electrical path can help substantially, but the interconnect problem does not disappear. It moves, so the package must now support:

• High-speed electrical I/O
• Optical coupling
• Laser deliver
• Fiber attachment
• Power delivery
• Thermal gradients
• Mechanical stress
• Alignment stability
• Test access
• Manufacturing yield
• Serviceability

As optical engines move closer to compute, component benchmarks become less meaningful in isolation. A faster laser, modulator, or detector creates system value only when its performance can be preserved through electrical drive, thermal conditions, optical coupling, alignment, packaging, manufacturing, and test.

The useful performance of the optical link is therefore increasingly determined by the architecture surrounding the device, not by the device alone. Moving optics closer to compute therefore does more than shorten an electrical connection. It changes where the system boundary must be closed.

Package becomes part of optical scaling strategy

At moderate bandwidth density, packaging can sometimes appear to be supporting infrastructure around the optical function. At extreme bandwidth density, that distinction becomes difficult to maintain.

The package determines how close the optical engine can be placed to compute. It influences electrical reach, determines fiber and optical access, and carries the power. Next, it establishes much of the thermal environment and influences mechanical stability and alignment. That affects manufacturability and yield and determines how the device can be inspected and tested.

That influences long-term optical performance through thermal expansion, stress, material movement, and aging. This means optical scaling can no longer be separated cleanly from advanced packaging. So, the relevant question is no longer how fast is the modulator or how many wavelengths can the fiber carry?

The more important question becomes: Can the optical, electrical, thermal, mechanical, packaging, and manufacturing architecture support the required bandwidth together? That is a system-level scaling problem.

Scaling mechanisms beginning to stack

This may define the next phase of optical interconnect. A future architecture may simultaneously use:

• Higher symbol rates
• Multiple wavelengths
• Spatial parallelism
• Advanced modulation
• DSP and FEC
• Co-packaged or near-package optical engines
• New fiber or waveguide structures
• More sophisticated thermal and control systems

As a result, the scaling mechanisms begin to stack. That creates enormous potential bandwidth. But it also means that every generation depends on a larger number of interacting mechanisms functioning correctly at the same time. Theoretical aggregate bandwidth may be extremely high.

The realizable bandwidth is constrained by whether all of those mechanisms can coexist within acceptable mode:

• Power
• Latency
• Temperature
• Signal margin
• Alignment tolerance
• Manufacturing yield
• Testability
• Reliability
• Cost

The scaling limit therefore begins to move. It’s no longer determined only by the maximum capability of an individual optical device. It’s increasingly determined by the ability to integrate multiple scaling dimensions into a manufacturable system.

Architecture becomes multiplier

This leads to a broader distinction. Electronics historically extracted enormous value from repeatedly improving a fundamental building block. Make the transistor smaller and many system-level advantages followed. But optics has no single, equally-dominant scaling knob.

So, optical interconnect increasingly creates aggregate progress by combining several mechanisms at once. However, it doesn’t make device innovation less important.

• Better lasers matter
• Better modulators matter
• Better detectors matter
• Better fibers matter
• Better photonic platforms matter
• Better electronic interfaces matter

But the value of each technology increasingly depends on how successfully it participates in the larger system. A high-performance modulator may be difficult to scale if its thermal sensitivity requires excessive control. A fiber architecture may provide enormous theoretical capacity but struggles if connectorization and alignment become impractical.

A wavelength-rich design may lose its advantage if tuning and calibration consume too much power. An optical engine may achieve exceptional bandwidth density but fail economically if assembly yield is too low. A very fast lane may provide little system benefit if the electrical path required to drive it consumes too much power.

There is no isolated winner. Architecture determines how much of each technology can actually be used.

Metric is also changing

Optical progress has traditionally been summarized with headline numbers such as Gb/s per lane or Tb/s per module. Those metrics remain important, but architectural scaling demands broader measures.

• Bandwidth per watt
• Bandwidth per fiber
• Bandwidth per package edge
• Bandwidth per unit area
• Bandwidth per optical engine
• Bandwidth per dollar
• Bandwidth at acceptable manufacturing yield
• Bandwidth that remains stable across temperature, variation, and lifetime

Those metrics force physical realization into the discussion. A laboratory demonstration with extraordinary bandwidth is not automatically a scalable interconnect. A solution that achieves higher throughput by consuming excessive DSP power may simply move the system bottleneck into cooling.

A solution that increases channel density while making alignment intolerant to normal manufacturing variation may convert a bandwidth improvement into a yield problem. A design that performs at room temperature but shifts substantially across real operating conditions may not provide the usable bandwidth suggested by its nominal specification. Bandwidth alone is therefore not enough. The bandwidth must be realizable.

Next optical breakthrough may not be one device

The next major optical interconnect advance may therefore look different from historical semiconductor scaling. It may not arrive as one device or material that suddenly changes the entire trajectory. It may arrive as an architecture that combines several imperfect technologies unusually well.

• A little more baud rate
• More wavelengths
• More spatial parallelism
• Better modulation
• Better DSP
• Shorter electrical reach
• Better photonic integration
• More advanced packaging
• Better thermal control
• Better assembly
• Better test

Each contributes part of the answer. The breakthrough is making them coexist without losing the benefit to power, manufacturing complexity, yield, reliability, or cost. That is the architectural transition.

Optical scaling becoming system scaling

AI and HPC systems are creating extraordinary pressure on interconnect bandwidth. That pressure is unlikely to disappear, so individual optical and electronic devices will continue improving. But the bandwidth trajectory required by future systems may increasingly exceed what any single scaling mechanism can provide.

When that happens, architecture becomes the multiplier. The question changes from how fast can one optical link become to how many scaling dimensions can be combined into one manufacturable, power-efficient, reliable physical system? That is a different problem.

It’s also a much larger opportunity. The next optical scaling law may not belong to a single device. It may belong to the architecture that successfully combines multiple scaling dimensions into one realizable system.

When one physical dimension cannot scale fast enough, the system must scale in many dimensions. That’s why optical scaling is becoming architectural scaling.

Dr. Moh Kolbehdari is senior director of IC/packaging at Socionext US.

Related Content

• AI Clusters Spur Optical Connectivity
• The 200G/lane CPO pushes optical interconnect boundaries
• Where co-packaged optics (CPO) technology stands in 2026
• Photonics: A Foundational Scaling Layer for AI-Era Computing
• From Co-Packaged Optics to Nanolasers, Photonics Moves Inward

The post Optical scaling turning into an architectural challenge appeared first on EDN.

Iteration3D is a French web platform that generates customizable 3D models for printing, using a parametric engine to create models on demand based on user specifications.