EDN Network

Siemens EDA has snapped up a San Diego startup to complement its digital design and implementation capabilities with AI-powered exploration for advanced system-on-a-chip (SoC) architectures. Precision Innovations, a privately held EDA company, helps semiconductor engineering teams evaluate architectural and design trade-offs early in the SoC design cycle for faster time to silicon.

At a time when chip designers face rapidly increasing SoC complexity and the need to explore new architectures faster and more efficiently, Precision Innovations’ AI-powered early design exploration technology is expected to enhance Siemens’ EDA portfolio by accelerating time to silicon and improving power, performance and area (PPA).

The acquisition aims to bring AI-driven chip planning to a much broader set of semiconductor teams. Source: Siemens EDA

Precision Innovations, founded in San Diego, California, in 2019, develops EDA software built on the open-source OpenROAD framework to help engineers evaluate design feasibility, reduce design iterations, and accelerate time to market. “Together, we can help designers leverage AI to evaluate thousands of design options earlier in the process and focus on innovation where it matters most,” said Tom Spyrou, CEO of Precision Innovations.

Precision Innovations will become part of Siemens EDA’s Digital Design Creation software team to complement the company’s end-to-end digital flow that spans architecture, implementation, and the full silicon lifecycle management of SoCs. “With Precision Innovations joining Siemens, we will expand our ability to support customers as they face rapidly increasing SoC complexity and the need to explore new architectures faster and more efficiently,” said Ankur Gupta, executive VP of IC portfolio at Siemens EDA.

The acquisition, subject to customary conditions, is expected to complete in the third quarter of 2026.

Related Content

• Selling the EDA industry
• A bold and risky EDA acquisition
• Sagantec buys Dutch 20-nm EDA specialist
• Xilinx buys high-level synthesis EDA vendor
• Synopsys plus Ansys: The making of an EDA giant?

The post Siemens EDA acquires SoC toolmaker Precision Innovations appeared first on EDN.

Linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) stand out as one of the most reliable displacement sensors in modern engineering. By converting linear movement into proportional electrical signals, they deliver unmatched accuracy and repeatability across demanding environments—from aerospace control systems to industrial automation lines. Their rugged, non-contact design ensures long service life, while their ability to resist electrical noise makes them indispensable wherever precision and stability are paramount.

This article highlights how LVDTs operate, why they define precision sensing, and what are their key applications.

At the heart of an LVDT is a movable ferromagnetic core that shifts within a coil assembly, inducing voltage changes that correspond directly to displacement. This elegant mechanism defines LVDT’s reputation for precision sensing, enabling engineers to capture minute movements with exceptional accuracy and repeatability.

That reliability translates into critical applications: stabilizing aircraft control systems, guiding industrial automation processes, and supporting delicate medical instrumentation. By combining robust design with noise-resistant performance, LVDTs continue to set the benchmark for displacement measurement across diverse fields.

The electromagnetic elegance of LVDTs

Well, let’s dig deeper into the rabbit hole of LVDT design. Beyond the straightforward coil-and-core mechanism lies a finely tuned balance of electromagnetic principles that ensures linearity and stability across a wide measurement range.

Its differential signal output scales cleanly with displacement, canceling common-mode noise and making LVDTs remarkably resilient in harsh environments. This blend of simplicity and sophistication explains why they remain the sensor of choice when precision, durability, and repeatability are non-negotiable.

In practice, an LVDT is a widely used electromechanical transducer that converts the rectilinear motion of a mechanically coupled object into a proportional electrical signal. Its structure features a primary winding centered between two symmetrically spaced, identically wound secondary windings, forming the stationary coil assembly of the sensor.

The moving element is a separate tubular armature—called the core—made of magnetically permeable material. Free to slide axially within the hollow bore of the coil, the core is mechanically linked to the object under measurement. The bore provides ample radial clearance, ensuring no physical contact between the core and coil.

As the core shifts position, the magnetic coupling between the primary and each secondary winding changes, producing displacement-dependent voltage signals that deliver a precise electrical representation of the object’s position.

Figure 1 Pencil drawing illustrates the cutaway view of a basic LVDT. Source: Author

The primary winding is shown at the center of the LVDT. Two secondary coils are wound symmetrically on either side of the primary coil for short-stroke LVDTs, or concentrically over the primary coil for long-stroke versions. The two secondary windings are typically connected in a series-opposed (differential) configuration, ensuring that the output signal accurately reflects the core’s displacement.

In operation, the LVDT’s primary winding is energized by an alternating current of suitable amplitude and frequency, referred to as the primary excitation. The resulting electrical output is a differential AC voltage between the two secondary windings, which varies with the axial position of the core inside the coil. To make this signal more practical, it’s typically converted by electronic circuitry into a higher-level DC voltage or current.

Note that the two secondary windings are connected in series but wound in opposite directions—a series-opposed configuration that ensures the differential output accurately reflects the core’s displacement. For most industrial LVDTs, datasheets assume this series-opposed arrangement. In high-reliability sectors, however, the windings are often kept separate to enable more advanced error-correction techniques.

Figure 2 Schematic illustrates the circuit model of a basic LVDT. Source: Author

How an LVDT works: The silent precision of linear sensing

An LVDT operates as a specialized transformer with a single primary winding, two identical secondary windings, and a movable ferromagnetic core. The core slides axially within the assembly, linked to the monitored component by a push rod. When the primary winding is energized, its magnetic field induces voltages in the secondary coils.

Because these coils are connected in series-opposition, the output is zero when the core is centered at the null position. As the core shifts, magnetic coupling increases in one secondary and decreases in the other, producing a differential output voltage proportional to displacement. The direction of movement is indicated by the phase of the output signal relative to the primary excitation.

To summarize, an AC LVDT is a variable-reluctance transducer that operates by energizing a primary coil with a constant AC supply to induce a magnetic field. This flux is coupled through a moving armature to two secondary coils which are wired in series opposition.

When the armature is at the null position (dead center), the magnetic flux is distributed equally between both secondaries, causing their output to cancel out perfectly. However, as the shaft shifts closer to one coil, the energy in that coil increases relative to the other; by measuring this differential output, the sensor precisely determines the shaft’s position and direction within the tube at all times.

Figure 3 LVDT AC miniature free core position sensors monitor and track the linear motion or position of a target. Source: HGSI

LVDT mechanical configurations: The art of precision displacement

Modern LVDTs are available in three primary mechanical configurations to suit different integration needs. Free (unguided) armature LVDTs utilize a core that moves freely within the bore; because the core is not physically restrained by the sensor, it’s ideal for high-speed dynamic applications where near-zero friction is required.

Captive (guided) armature LVDTs feature internal bearings to maintain core alignment, preventing lateral wear and simplifying installation in industrial automation. Finally, spring-loaded (forced) LVDTs employ an internal spring to maintain contact with the specimen, making them the go-to choice for gauging and QC applications where a permanent mechanical link to the test object is not possible.

Each variety offers a unique trade-off between mechanical simplicity and operational precision.

LVDTs: Key features and operational benefits

LVDT stands as a premier electromechanical transducer, primarily distinguished by its friction-free operation; since the movable core does not touch the coil assembly, there is zero mechanical wear, ensuring an exceptionally long lifetime and high reliability. This physical decoupling allows for infinite resolution, enabling the detection of sub-micron displacements limited only by the signal-conditioning electronics, while its single axis sensitivity ensures that cross-axial movements do not interfere with measurement accuracy.

The design’s separable coil and core mechanism simplifies integration into complex machinery, and its environmentally robust construction allows it to thrive in extreme temperatures or high-vibration settings. Furthermore, LVDT provides remarkable null point stability for consistent zero-referencing, a fast dynamic response capable of tracking rapid changes in position. And, most importantly, an absolute output that retains the correct position data immediately upon power-up, even if the core moved while the system was inactive.

Support electronics: From AC physics to DC simplicity

Although an LVDT is technically a transformer, it requires specialized AC excitation—typically a few volts RMS at several kilohertz—rather than standard line power. Supplying this excitation is a key role of LVDT signal-conditioning electronics, which also convert low-level AC outputs into high-level DC signals, decode directional information from the 180° phase shift at the null point, and provide precise electrical zero adjustments.

These electronics are available in multiple forms, from chip-level components for OEM integration to modular boards and full laboratory instruments. Some LVDTs incorporate integral electronics for simplified “DC-in, DC-out” operation, but such self-contained units may be unsuitable for extreme environments where heat, vibration, or space constraints can compromise internal circuitry.

Figure 4 Datasheet excerpt shows an in-line amplifier transforming LVDT displacement into a directly proportional DC signal. Source: MTS

As a quick side note, LVDT is the technical acronym for the component itself—linear variable differential transformer—while LVDT displacement sensor is often used in industrial catalogs to distinguish it from other measurement technologies, such as capacitive or eddy-current sensors. This descriptive naming helps engineers quickly identify the device’s primary function as a tool for tracking linear position, even though both terms refer to the same electromagnetic hardware.

LVDT signal conditioning: Differential vs. ratiometric

Back to the signals, when choosing how to process an LVDT signal, the main difference lies in how the system handles fluctuations in power. Differential input AC signal conditioning is the more straightforward approach, where the sensor simply measures the difference in voltage between its two secondary coils to determine position. While effective, it has a notable weakness: if the input power (excitation voltage) fluctuates even slightly, the output reading will change as well, potentially leading to errors.

Ratiometric signal conditioning is a more sophisticated method designed to eliminate those errors. Instead of just looking at the difference between the coils, it compares that difference to the total sum of the voltage from both coils. By calculating this ratio, the system automatically cancels out any inconsistencies in the power supply. This makes ratiometric conditioning much more stable and reliable for high-precision tasks, as the measurement stays accurate even if the environment gets hot or the input voltage drifts.

Figure 5 This standalone universal LVDT signal conditioner supports any LVDT sensor with 4, 5, or 6 wires, as well as RVDT or 3-wire half-bridge sensors. Source: Lab Systems

It’s worth noting that an LVDT measures straight-line (linear) displacement, whereas a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT) measures angular (rotary) displacement.

Precision in motion—From floor to space

From machine tools and robotics to aerospace and space-borne instrumentation, LVDTs remain the gold standard for precise, contactless position measurement. Their rugged construction, infinite resolution, and immunity to wear make them indispensable wherever accuracy must endure vibration, temperature extremes, or time itself.

For today’s makers and engineers, the story doesn’t end at the sensor—modern signal-conditioning ICs such as Analog Devices’ AD598 and Texas Instruments’ PGA970 bring excitation, demodulation, and calibration into compact solutions, while discrete signal-handling circuits continue to offer flexibility for custom designs and extreme environments.

And for those who venture into DIY territory, crafting the coil-core assembly demands patience, precision winding, and careful alignment—skills that embody the very discipline of engineering. Whether you’re building a robotic actuator, a precision test rig, or a satellite mechanism, LVDT proves that elegant physics and smart electronics can turn motion into measurable insight.

I’m ready for a larger displacement of detail in future posts, but at this time, that’s all. Take this knowledge forward—experiment, prototype, and innovate with LVDTs, integrated ICs, discrete signal handlers, and even your own hand-built coil assemblies. Push your designs from the lab bench to the factory floor, and even to orbit. The next breakthrough in precision engineering could start with your hands.

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

• Give Unique Test Gear Some Respect
• PSoC microcontroller and LVDT measure position
• Crosstalk Between Sensors in Multi-Channel LVDT Systems Solved
• Magnetostrictive sensors can be replaced with NewTek AC-LVDTs in power generation applications

The post Precision in motion: The engineering value of LVDTs appeared first on EDN.

Bluetooth and Wi-Fi combine to untether smartphone-to-car connections…at least until the former’s battery drains, that is.

At this year’s beginning, EDN published my overview and hands-on impressions of Apple’s CarPlay and Google’s Android Auto standards, which enable a vehicle radio or automotive head unit to be a display and controller for an iOS or Android device, respectively. Historically, both protocols leveraged a wired USB-based interface between mobile device and vehicle to accomplish the integration objective, for latency, bandwidth and interference-prevention reasons. Newer vehicle models switch to Bluetooth (for initial discovery and connection) and Wi-Fi (for ongoing transmission) communication, enhancing convenience. And bridging these two approaches are wireless adapters that mate an untethered phone to the tethered vehicle.

At the end of that prior coverage, I wrote, “FYI, I’ve also got two single-protocol wireless adapter candidates sitting in my teardown pile awaiting attention.”

Today I’ll analyze the insides of a CarPlay wireless adapter, albeit not the “unit from the Luckymore Store” that I initially planned on disassembling. Next month, I plan to take apart a wireless adapter that implements the Android Auto protocol. And I’ll subsequently wrap up my dissections with a dual-protocol wireless adapter functionally akin to the one still in use in my wife’s Land Rover.

Supplier disappearance and switcheroo

Here again is the wireless CarPlay adapter I’d originally intended as today’s patient.

Right now, as I write these words, it lists for $44.17 on Amazon’s website. But when I bought it in mid-December, it was on sale for $2.99 plus tax, with free shipping. Although the merchant subsequently reported to both Amazon and me that it had shipped, it never actually arrived. And I wasn’t the only one that had this same underwhelming seller experience. Yes, I got my $3.12 back eventually.

I subsequently picked up this WOLIOS adapter (which apparently also came in white), well-reviewed but seemingly no longer available for sale as I write this, from Amazon’s Warehouse-now-Resale section for $11.85 in late February.

Gotta love these conceptual teardown images. And no, I don’t definitively know what “5G” means, either, although I suspect they’re referencing “5 GHz” Wi-Fi.

And, wrapping up the “stock content” suite, a promo video (which, alas, I can’t figure out how to embed) can be found here.

Overview introductions

Now for some real-life photos, as usual accompanied by a 0.75″ (19.1 mm) diameter U.S. penny for size comparison purposes, and of the product packaging first:

Next, what’s inside:

The red disc is an optional sticker for adhering the wireless adapter to the vehicle interior. The included USB-A (female) to USB-C (male) adapter for newer-vehicle use is a nice touch:

And now for our patient:

The hole in the center allows the status LED inside to shine through, as conceptually shown in the prior “stock” images. And the seam around the rim? I’m betting that’s our path inside.

Stubborn adhesive

Speaking of paths to the insides, let’s dive in.

Abundant exposure to my wife’s hair dryer on “high” (both temperature and fan speed) helped, but only a little. I resisted using my heat gun as it might have been melt-inducing overkill.

The last bit of the panel stubbornly refused to dismantle, so I eventually turned to a cutter tool.

Finally free, courtesy of a needle-nose pliers, albeit resulting in PCB mars.

This side’s much more interesting:

The embedded antenna at upper right is curious. As previously noted, two wireless broadcast links are necessary: 2.4 GHz Bluetooth for initial setup, and Wi-Fi for ongoing streaming. The latter is usually based on the 5 GHz band for higher transfer bandwidth, since range isn’t a concern in a diminutive vehicle interior. But I only see one antenna here.

Did the manufacturer figure out some way to passably enable it to support both bands? Or is there another one somewhere that I’m overlooking? Or does this particular design, in contrast to “Wireless Compability [sic]: 5.8 GHz Radio Frequency” spec claims to the contrary, leverage 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi instead? Or…???

Equally baffling is the user-inaccessible switch in the lower left corner (with the status LED to its right, in the middle of the lower edge). What’s the switch for? And then there’s the unmarked square IC enigma above and to the switch’s right (and LED’s left). I assume it’s the application processor, and that it runs at 24 MHz (courtesy of the marked oscillator to its left).

But who makes it, and what’s its specific product code? Another mystery. These are commonly Arm-based, with Chinese fabless suppliers Allwinner and Rockchip common sources (so says Google AI Overviews, at least), although this reverse-engineered unit from early and ongoing-leading adapter supplier Carlinkit reportedly leverages a Freescale (now NXP Semiconductors) SoC, the i.MX6 UltraLite.

To its right, and to the left of (and slightly below) the aforementioned antenna(e) assembly, is a Winbond W25Q128 128 Mbit serial flash memory, presumably housing the user-upgradeable system firmware image. And then there’s the even larger shiny-shield covered square IC below the antenna(e). This one’s easier to figure out, thanks to the careful application of a flat-head screwdriver acting as a lever.

It’s Realtek’s RTL8733, supporting the device’s wireless subsystem. The RTL8733 comprehends both Bluetooth and dual-band Wi-Fi transceiver functionality and presumably operates in conjunction with the mystery application processor to implement the adapter’s wireless-to-USB wired bridge functionality.

That’s all I’ve got for you today, folks. As always, let loose with your thoughts in the comments!

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

Related Content

• Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto: Usage impressions and manufacturer tensions
• Spotify’s Car Thing: “Why does it exist” is the crux of the questioning
• Amazon’s Echo Auto Assistant: Legacy vehicle retrofit-relevant

The post Adapter makes CarPlay connectivity wireless appeared first on EDN.

It took 100 years to come to fruition, but this recently created fluid enables non-magnetic electrostatic-based motors.

Say the word “motor” to most engineers and they almost always associate it with magnetics of some type, whether the term is explicitly stated or not. Of course, not all electrically powered motors use magnetism: piezoelectric motors use that well-known principle and the voltage-driven elongation of a crystal, and there are also tiny MEMS-based motors.

Still, magnetics is front of mind for most cases, with motors that take electric current and power and transform it into a magnetic force that drives the rotor. (Come to think of it, there are also pneumatic and hydraulic motors often used by mechanical engineers, often with some electronic control – but that’s another story for another day.)

That’s why a recent development led by a team at the Institute of Science Tokyo may change our thinking about non-magnetic motors. They have developed a rotary motor based on electrostatic forces rather than the usual electromagnetic ones. Using a ferroelectric fluid, motors that previously required fairly high voltages on the order of 1000 V can operate at much lower voltages. (Not familiar with ferroelectric fluids, or have them confused with ferrofluids? See the sidebar at the end.)

A critical factor in their approach is that the force generated by electricity is not limited to attraction along the direction of the applied voltage. Instead, there is also a force that acts perpendicular to that direction, creating a sideways-pushing force. In conventional materials, this sideways force is extremely weak and has long been considered too small to utilize and, as a result, has attracted little attention.

However, the team demonstrated that the sideways electrostatic force can, under the right conditions, become surprisingly strong. They placed the fluid between two electrodes separated by only a few millimeters and applied a voltage. The result was striking: the liquid was pushed sideways and moved nearly 10 centimeters even against gravity. When the same experiment was performed with conventional liquids, this motion did not occur; the effect appeared only with the ferroelectric fluid.

Another interesting finding was how the force increased. In ordinary materials, increasing the voltage does not easily lead to a large increase in force. In contrast, with the ferroelectric fluid, even a small increase in voltage led to a proportional increase in force. Through detailed deep-physics analysis, the team found that the electric field causes the molecules in the liquid to align in an ordered way, generating the sideways-pushing force.

Using ferroelectric nematic liquid crystals, they were able to show that transverse electrostatic force (TEF) can elevate the fluid between electrodes with a gap of 2.5 millimeters (mm) up to more than 80 mm at only 28 V/mm, corresponding to a stress greater than 1000 newtons/m2 (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Direct observation of the TEF produced interesting results. (a) Experimental setup where TEF is balanced with the gravitational force. Voltage-dependent fluid heights at a 10mm gap under applied voltages of 0 V (b), 50 V (c), 100 V (d), and 150 V (e). Note that the zero-point height is 1 cm on the ruler. (f) Case of a 2.5mm gap at DC 80 V. (g) Height of fluid, H, plotted as a function of the applied voltage V for 1.0 (green), 2.5 (pink), 5.0 (yellow), and 10mm (purple). The data for silicone oil and nematic liquid crystal 4-cyano-4′-pentylbiphenyl (5CB) at 80 V at a 2.5mm gap are shown as a gray bullet. (h) Generated stress, σ⊥, plotted as a function of the applied electric field E. (The inset is a magnification at a 1.0mm gap.) (Image source: Springer Nature)

This discovery led to a next logical next step: if this force can push, could it also be used to create rotation? The answer is yes, and they developed a prototype motor that does not use magnets, a metal rotor, or rare-earth metals (Figure 2).

Figure 2 A prototype plastic ferroelectric motor successfully implemented rotation (Left: angled view; Right: bottom view with the lower electrode removed to reveal the resin rotor) (Image source: Institute of Science Tokyo)

The structure can also be simpler and lighter. Because the rotating part can be made of resin rather than metal, devices can be made lighter and respond more quickly. The absence of magnetic materials also means it can be used where having these materials in proximity to other system parts can induce magnetic noise or distortions.

Additional tests were done to assess both stability and scalability for the TEF-based approach (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Testing of TEF scalability and stability further confirmed concept viability. (a) Lifting a resin weight (circled in white) by TEF generated in a ferroelectric fluid, before a DC voltage was applied (upper) and after lifting for 22mm upon application of DC 20 V (lower). The mass was 5 mg, constrained between the electrodes. The interelectrode  distance was fixed at 1.0mm. (b) Experimental setup for testing TEF scalability and stability. A tensile-testing machine holds a 3D-printed resin piece whose base area is 100mm2. The resin piece is immersed in the ferroelectric fluid reservoir to a depth of 1 mm; the aluminum parallel-plate electrodes of 56 mm length were fixed at a distance of 2.5 mm. The temperature was controlled by heaters with thermocouples inserted into the reservoir. The temperature of the ferroelectric fluid was directly measured by a thermocouple immersed in the fluid. (c) Time-course measurement of TEF under 60 V DC using the tensile-testing machine experiment setup shown in (b). Generated TEF, F⊥, was plotted as a function of time t. The force represented by the red line is the five-point moving average before and after the raw data shown in gray. (Image source: Springer Nature)

Of course, the true endpoint of this project was not just to explore these fluids but make something that at least initially appears potentially useful, such as an electric motor. To do this, they built a motor roughly analogous to a DC stepper motor by following three basic design rules (Figure 4):

1. The fundamental components should consist of three pairs of stators and two rotors.
2. The width of the rotor should be longer than that of the stator but shorter than the sum of the width of the stator and the space between stators.
3. The relationship between the total number of stators and rotors should be an integer multiple of 3:2.

Figure 4 The ferroelectric motor’s novel design followed three basic rules. (a) (Upper) Case of the width of a mover being shorter than that of the electrodes. (Lower) The case of the width of a mover being longer. (b) A fundamental configuration of electrodes for continuous movement. The number in the upper-left corner of each panel corresponds to the phases of the pulse shown at the bottom. (c) CAD designs and photographs of the rotor (bottom inset) and the stator (top inset). The position of the upper stator in the CAD designs is not the actual position for clarity. The outer diameter, each pole’s length, and thickness of the rotor are 18 mm, 4 mm, and 1 mm, respectively. The stator consists of three-layered electrodes (U, V, and W poles) with two insulating layers. The outer diameter, each pole’s length, and total thickness of the rotor are 28 mm, 4 mm, and 2.1 mm, respectively. The length of the overlapping part of the poles of the rotor and the stator is about 3.5 mm. The gap between the upper and lower stators is 2 mm. (d) External view of the assembled motor. (Image source: Springer Nature)

Their prototype ferroelectric motor consists of a 3-phase 24-pole stator with an 11.25° electrode angle and a 3.75° space angle between stators and a single-phase 16-pole rotor with a 12.5° electrode angle and a 10° space angle. It was driven with a 3-phase, 60-V square wave with a duty ratio of 33%.

Most electrostatic motors studied thus far required a high applied electric field of several 10–100 MV/m; in contrast, the ferroelectric motor rotated with an electric field as weak as 0.03 MV/m (here, 60 V/2 mm), which means that a driving voltage as low as one-thousandth of that figure could be used.

The most important advantage of this ferroelectric motor over ordinary electromagnetic motors is that it does not require a voltage to be applied to the rotor, which means that the rotor can be made of resin instead of metal, making it lightweight and reducing inertia. In addition, because the rotor does not need to be energized, mechanisms such as carbon brushes and slip rings are unnecessary.

The work is fully detailed in their paper “Huge transverse Maxwell stress in ferroelectric fluids and prototyping of new ferroelectric motors” published in Nature’s Communication Engineering (why there – I can’t say). It includes the associated deep-physics analysis as well as links to some “action” videos.

Do you think there’s a future for these electrostatic motors, or will real-world considerations hinder their advance? Or will they be like ferrofluids, and find uses far removed from their design objectives?

Sidebar: Ferroelectric fluids and ferrofluids

The history and development of ferroelectric fluids is a 100-year journey from an early 20th-century theoretical prediction culminating in 21st-century reality. In 1916, physicist Max Born predicted that if a fluid’s molecules possess a strong enough electric dipole, they would naturally form a spontaneously polar (ferroelectric) fluid that can withstand thermal fluctuations.

The concept of a polar, electric-field-responsive liquid was finally transformed into reality in 2017 when scientists experimentally produced the first stable ferroelectric nematic liquid crystals. They successfully synthesizing and identifies the elusive ferroelectric nematic phase in a highly polar rod-shaped molecular material (known in chemistry as RM734). This experimentally proved the existence of 3D fluids with stable, switchable macroscopic electric polarization. (See Science Advances, Development of ferroelectric nematic fluids with giant-ε dielectricity and nonlinear optical properties (2021).)

Ferroelectric fluids are easily confused with ferrofluids, but they are very different. Ferrofluids are colloidal suspensions of magnetic nanoparticles (like iron oxide) in a carrier oil and they respond to magnetic fields. They were developed by NASA’s Steve Papell in 1963 as a liquid rocket fuel that could be drawn toward a fuel pump in a weightless environment by applying a magnetic field. Although that application didn’t work out, these ferrofluids found other uses such as liquid seals around spinning drive shafts and in loudspeakers to remove heat from the voice coil while also passively damping the movement of the cone. In contrast, ferroelectric fluids (FNLCs) are pure or mixture-based 3D molecular fluids. They have spontaneous electric polarity and respond natively to electric fields.

—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

• Electric motors, pneumatics combine for amazing robotics
• Linear thinking about motors
• Brushed motors: Still a contender after all these years

The post A ferroelectric-fluid motor may challenge magnetic-motor designs appeared first on EDN.

USB-C will be 22 years old next month, from a published-specification standpoint. Yet it’s still rife with implementation imperfections. Why? Start with the words “published specification”.

One of the many upsides to my now-dual roles as both contributing and associate editor at EDN is deeper-than-prior insight into what topics, and what content pieces focused on those topics, perform particularly well from various website metrics standpoints. This includes my own stuff, of course; I’m not going to share how it does, either in an absolute sense or relative to my colleagues’ contributions, and I’ll also leave you to decide for yourselves whether that silence is driven by humility, embarrassment, or some combination of the two

I begin with this background information by means of introducing one particular piece of EDN content whose enduring stellar performance I will share with you. Week after week, I’m amazed to repeatedly see the article USB Pinout, Wiring and How It Works perpetually parked at the upper stratum of the site traffic spectrum. What’s particularly mind-blowing to me is that the article’s original publication date was January 26, 2010. Clearly, USB is a topic of enduring interest to you, our treasured readership, for oft-obvious reasons!

The latest generation

The date of this article’s initial appearance in EDN is intriguing for another reason; it arrived 4.5 years ahead of the publication of the version 1.0 specification for USB Type‑C, aka USB-C, and therefore doesn’t include mention of this latest generation of the standard. USB-C usage has subsequently become pervasive, courtesy of factors such as its two-fold rotational (and broader two-end) connector symmetry, in combination with higher data bandwidth (extended beyond USB 3.0, introduced in prior USB connector form factors) and higher power (Power Delivery, i.e., USB-PD, building on a proprietary Qualcomm Quick Charge foundation) transfer capabilities.

Yours truly, for example, has crafted three USB-C-focused pieces in recent years (along with innumerable other more minor mentions), the first one focused on the technology, including its generational development history, and the latter two sharing my personal (underwhelming, to be precise) experiences with it:

• 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?

And speaking of popular writeups, my cohort Bill Schweber followed up my USB-PD piece with his own technology treatise:

• USB-C and Power Delivery: Too much of a good thing?

We’re now more than two decades beyond that initial publication date for USB Type‑C Specification 1.0, and I’d love to be able to say that all (or even most) initial implementation warts have been effectively mitigated at this point. I’d love to be able to say that…but I’d be lying if I did. All three of my earlier noted USB-C advancements—connector symmetry, data bandwidth, and power carriage—will unfortunately be demonstrated as enduringly imperfect in the following paragraphs, in fact. Without further ado…

Identity indecision

Let’s start with the fundamentals. Does a particular USB-C cable carry only power? Or power plus data? How much power? And at what peak data transfer rate, if any? Sadly, the answer to these few elementary questions is often consistently unsatisfying, along the lines of “Duh…I dunno. Plug it in, test it and find out for yourself. Then stick an info label on it so you don’t forget.”

Take, for example, this cable:

which came bundled with an inexpensive computer docking station I recently acquired, specifically to test out (and then tear down) its touted DisplayLink capabilities:

By means of association with the specs of its docking station companion, I can make the following cable feature set assumptions:

• Power-plus-data support
• 100W peak power carriage
• 5 Mbps peak data transfer rate

So, if I only use it with the docking station going forward, I’ll inherently likely know what it can (and can’t) do. But what if the dock dies or the cable more broadly get separated and tossed in a drawer with others? It’s unmarked in its entirety, thereby providing no visual notification of its capabilities (and limitations). This unfortunately quite common anonymity rationalizes the recent unveil of the open-source, albeit MacOS-only (and Apple Silicon-only) from a compiled-code standpoint, WhatCable utility, for example:

And even if I was able to retain the original packaging and documentation associated with the cable, those info supplements might still not suffice. Take this cable, which I’d purchased as part of a six-pack from Woot in March 2022 for $17.97, as illustration of the concept:

The cable itself is again a blank slate, specification-wise. And although in this case the connectors are embossed, they’re still meaningfully information-deficient:

What about the box? It’s of little-to-no assistance, either. The front panel claims that it’s “USB 2.0”, which infers (at least to folks with sufficient technical “chops” to decode the terminology, a scant sliver of the overall consumer community, and still not definitively) that it also supports power-plus-data, albeit the latter only rudimentarily, with a 480 Mbps transfer rate.

And what about power carriage? For that we need to turn to the back panel of the box:

Note the “5V⎓3A” terminology at the top, which translates to a 15W peak power spec. That multiplicative exercise outcome stands in stark contrast to the product page, which states that the cable is 60W-capable (therefore explaining the four-plus-year old scribble from yours truly that you’ll see in the picture). I’ve never encountered a 15W USB-C to USB-C cable, in fact, only 60W ones (along with higher-power variants such as 100W, 140W and 240W), although plenty of 15W USB-A (the current-limiting connector) to USB-C cables alternatively exist.

When I reported the discrepancy to Woot after receiving the initial six-cable (three-box) shipment, customer support told me to keep ‘em and sent me free replacements, whose packaging was labeled in exactly the same (incorrect) way. Eventually, I got a full refund and ended up with 12 gratis, albeit power carriage-dubious, cables for my trouble. In revisiting the product page just now while writing this section, I noticed that Woot eventually appended a correction (albeit, the engineer in me is compelled to point out, using the “=” symbol instead of the correct “⎓”…current and voltage being completely different things, don’cha know):

Please note the Amazon Basics box might state “5V=3A”. This is just a standard industry specification for USB-C cables. HOWEVER, these cables do support charging up to 60W (20V=3A) if paired with a charging brick capable of supporting 60W charging and a device capable of receiving 60W charging.

Beware the upside down

This last case study for today also originated in a several-year-old personal experience. As USB-C approached critical marketplace mass, peripheral equipment (mass storage devices, headsets and other audio equipment, etc.) increasingly shipped by default with integrated USB-C connectors versus USB-A with predecessor gear variants. Sometimes, the manufacturer also bundled a USB-C to USB-A adapter for connection to legacy computers and the like, albeit with tradeoffs such as:

• 5 Mbps (USB 3.0) peak transfer speeds, and
• Negation of USB-PD support that might be minimally beneficial, if not functionally flat-out necessary, since only USB-C includes the necessary communication channel (CC) signals for initial protocol handshaking. Strictly speaking, per the USB-PD specification, modulation on the USB-A-supported Vbus and Vgnd signals could also be used for this purpose, but real-life adoption of this alternative technique is scant-to-nonexistent.

Other times, however, to save a few bill-of-materials cents (not to mention avoiding additional expensive technical support sessions), the peripheral manufacturer would dispense with the backwards-compatible adapter, requiring the customer to as-needed alternatively purchase it standalone. So it was that I picked up a set of two inexpensive ($8.09 total) XAOSUN USB-C female to USB-A male adapters from Amazon, since at the time (and, to a lesser degree, even today), the majority of the computers in my stable met the “legacy” (USB-C-less) criteria:

Good news: they support up-to-10 Mbps peak transfer rates, versus the nominal 5 Mbps speed spec’d for others’ adapters. Bad news: this happens only when the peripheral connector is inserted in one of USB-C’s two possible orientations. In the other (also unmarked) orientation, the adapter will pass through data at only USB 2-compatible 480 Mbps peak speeds:

Please note that this USB-C to USB Adapter only supports single-sided 10Gbps high-speed transmission. The Type-C female port allows you to switch between USB 3.1 speed and USB 2.0 speed with a simple flip of the Type C plug. Now you can enjoy unparalleled transmission quality from your devices!

The manufacturer classifies this explanation under an “Easy to Use” category on the Amazon product page listing. I profoundly disagree. Again, as a “techie” I have awareness from past experience of how 10 Mbps (or even 5 Mbps, for that matter) speeds should be perceived by a user, so if things are proceeding slower than expected, I’ll instinctively realize that I need to:

• Cancel the current in-process operation
• Disconnect the peripheral
• Flip the connector by 180° and re-insert, and
• Restart the operation

Conversely, even fundamentally knowing that there’s a problem, far from remembering what’s causing it and how to recover from it, is well beyond the capabilities of the average consumer.

And stepping back, why is this even happening? The answer’s in the “single-sided 10 Gbps” phrasing. As discussed at length in Reddit threads (for example) such as the following:

• What does “single-sided” 10Gbps mean in this adapter?
• Any reliable USB-C (female) to USB-A (male) adapters yet?

this limitation is fundamentally driven by cost-reduction moves made by the manufacturer, specifically in passively routing only one set of SuperSpeed differential source pins to the USB-A destination. Routing both sets of source pins, thereby enabling SuperSpeed operation in both possible USB-C orientations, necessitates active circuitry such as Via Labs’ VL160 or a successor or competitor.

Certification vs compliance

Why do situations like the ones described in this writeup, along with those in prior USB-C coverage from me (reminder: listed at the beginning of this piece, as well as the end), occur at all? Isn’t this something that the USB-IF (Implementers Forum) should be dealing with? The answer to this question lies in the differentiation between “compliance” and “certification”. Although USB-IF encourages compliance (via member workshops, testing by independent labs and other means) to “provide reasonable measures of acceptability”, the organization’s specifications are freely published and available for download and implementation by everyone.

Strictly speaking, manufacturers (and products from those companies) are allowed to license and use the USB-IF logo set only if they’ve successfully passed compliance testing. But by now we’ve all likely come across companies that stick the FCC logo on devices and their packaging even though it’s highly unlikely that those products have even applied for FCC certification, far from achieving it (with an omitted FCC certification ID one obvious tip-off). USB logos are presumably also being used in a similarly cavalier manner.

Retailers can also put pressure to bear on suppliers; some require proof of USB-IF compliance determination before they’re willing to stock a particular product (not to mention a broader manufacturer full product suite), for example. And an excessive return rate can also be effective in compelling a retailer to drop a product, not to mention the company that developed it. Still, at the end of the day this fundamentally remains a caveat emptor situation for consumers.

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. Until then, I welcome your thoughts in the comments on anything I’ve so far discussed!

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

Related Content

• USB Pinout, Wiring and How It Works
• 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 other complexities, part 1: Direct-connect complications appeared first on EDN.

Infineon’s RIC70115 GaN HEMT gate driver provides the radiation hardness and long-term reliability required for satellite and space applications. Supporting both silicon FETs and GaN HEMTs in low-side and high-side configurations, the device helps ease the transition from silicon to GaN.

Operating over a temperature range of -55°C to +125°C, the RIC70115 is characterized for single-event effects up to a linear energy transfer (LET) of 81.9 MeV·cm²/mg and a total ionizing dose (TID) of up to 100 krad(Si). Its independent Miller clamp prevents parasitic-induced turn-on while maintaining switching speed, reducing switching losses. Truly differential input logic rejects common-mode noise and minimizes the effects of EMI and RFI.

An integrated low-dropout regulator generates a tightly regulated 4.8-V drive voltage from a 5-V or 12-V source, supporting a supply voltage range of 4.75 V to 15 V. The RIC70115 provides a 1.5-A source current and a 2.5-A sink current, with propagation delay matching of up to 2.9 ns.

The RIC70115 is offered in a hermetically sealed 16-pin LCC package or in die form. 

RIC70115 product page 

Infineon Technologies  

The post Rad-hard gate driver enables GaN adoption appeared first on EDN.

Tomocube’s HT-T1D is a desktop holotomography system for high-resolution, non-destructive 3D defect analysis of glass substrates used in semiconductor packaging. It images internal defects and other fine features with a lateral resolution of 161 nm and an axial resolution of 1.298 µm.

Glass core substrates and glass interposers are gaining traction as key enabling materials for AI accelerators, high-bandwidth memory, and other advanced packaging applications. Manufacturers need to identify the root causes of micro-defects and quickly translate inspection data into process improvements.

The HT-T1D system applies visible-light holotomography to visualize the three-dimensional refractive-index distribution inside glass with refractive-index sensitivity down to ~10⁻⁴ Δn. Its non-destructive measurements enable repeated analysis of the same location across successive process stages, allowing users to track when and how defects form, propagate, or enlarge.

When conventional in-line panel inspection tools such as automated optical inspection (AOI) systems flag a potential defect, the HT-T1D uses the corresponding coordinates to reconstruct the interior of the glass substrate in three dimensions. It resolves the defect’s location, morphology, and depth profile that surface inspection alone cannot reveal.

HT-T1D product page 

Tomocube

The post Holotomography system analyzes glass defects appeared first on EDN.

Two TVS diode series from Littelfuse, the TP5.0SMD-FL and TP1KSMB-FL, protect 48-V automotive electronics from voltage transients. Based on the FlatSuppressX TVS architecture, the devices exhibit a flatter clamping characteristic with a significantly lower clamping voltage than conventional TVS components. Their foldback/snapback function tightly controls transient response while avoiding latch-up risk.

The TP5.0SMD-FL series has a peak pulse power rating of up to 5 kW in a DO-214AB (SMC) package. The TP1KSMB-FL series has a peak pulse power rating of up to 1 kW in a DO-214AA (SMB) package. Devices in both series are AEC-Q101 qualified, providing scalable protection options for varying system requirements. Their architecture enhances system efficiency, enabling the use of lower-rated downstream components.

Optimized for protecting I/O interfaces, power buses, and other vulnerable circuits in automotive electronics, particularly 48-V architectures, these TVS diodes provide a fast transient response, typically in less than 1 ps.

The TP5.0SMD-FL and TP1KSMB-FL series are available in tape and reel format in quantities of 3,000. Sample requests are accepted through authorized Littelfuse distributors worldwide. 

Littelfuse

The post TVS diodes clamp automotive transients appeared first on EDN.

MPLAB XC Pro Compilers and the MPLAB Machine Learning Development Suite from Microchip are now available at no cost. Unlimited installations give users free access to advanced optimization capabilities and integrated embedded machine learning workflows, whether working individually or as part of a development team.

Previously available through paid license tiers, the MPLAB XC Pro Compilers reduce code size, lower memory usage, improve execution speed, and generate architecture-optimized code for embedded applications. These capabilities support software development across Microchip’s 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit MCU and MPU portfolio.

The MPLAB Machine Learning Development Suite includes the Model Builder plug-in for MPLAB X IDE and Microsoft Visual Studio Code. It generates optimized AI and IoT sensor recognition code to support embedded machine learning development on resource-constrained devices.

MPLAB XC Compilers and the MPLAB Machine Learning Development Suite are now available as free, unrestricted-use downloads.

Microchip Technology

The post Microchip offers free MPLAB compilers, AI tools appeared first on EDN.

The Rambus DDR5 9600 server RDIMM chipset supports DDR5 RDIMMs operating at up to 9600 MT/s in CPU-based server platforms. The chipset is built around the RCD06 sixth-generation registering clock driver, which increases bandwidth by 20% over the previous generation. As a key control-plane chip, the registering clock driver distributes command/address, chip-select, and clock signals to the DRAM devices on the RDIMM.

In addition to the RCD06, the chipset includes the PMIC5030 power management IC and a serial presence detect (SPD) hub with an integrated temperature sensor. The SPD hub communicates via the I3C bus for system configuration and thermal management. Two dedicated temperature sensors per DIMM provide precision thermal sensing and, in combination with the SPD hub, enable three points of thermal telemetry for the memory module.

By integrating clocking, control, and power management functions, the chipset helps ensure signal and power integrity at high data rates while simplifying the design of DDR5 RDIMMs. This level of integration becomes increasingly important as server architectures scale to support higher processor core counts, larger memory capacities, and the sustained demands of continuously running AI workloads.

Learn more about the DDR5 9600 Server RDIMM chipset here.

Rambus

The post RDIMM chipset boosts server memory bandwidth appeared first on EDN.

When doing analog design, especially at higher frequencies ranging into the microwave region, it’s normal to focus on devices and the performance they enable in the specific topology. But there’s another aspect of microwave design that’s important to keep in mind: the role of advanced materials and the atomic-scale physics that allows conception, construction, and test of the advanced devices need to reach toward the multi-gigahertz part of the spectrum.

This is demonstrated by a recent Cornell University-led development related to voltage-tunable capacitors, or varactors, that combine high performance with low loss—and the road to get there. Traditional varactor technologies, while effective, often hit a performance ceiling due to intrinsic material limitations, particularly when it comes to dielectric losses that degrade signal quality.

A federal research program was initiated in 1999 to find materials for varactors that would offer lower dielectric losses at higher frequencies. The “back story” of success here is yet another example of how progress is often not linear, predictable, or obvious, despite the way it’s often portrayed.

The research team’s success here is due to persistence and following a very different path, as the project has been a long journey. While nearly every scientific team in the program focused on using barium strontium titanate, the Cornell team looked at layered crystalline materials, a type of perovskite structure known as Ruddlesden-Popper thin films, characterized by their exceptionally low energy loss at microwave frequencies.

Unfortunately, these films also had a major drawback: according to the accepted understanding of their crystal symmetry, they shouldn’t have been able to provide the tunability needed for practical devices.

A member of the research team was developing a new technique for measuring the dielectric properties of thin films across a wide range of frequencies. One of his measurements of strontium titanium oxide with composition Sr4Ti3O10, a layered Ruddlesden-Popper thin film, suggested something remarkable: the supposedly untunable material might, in fact, be tunable after all.

But there was a problem: the effect only appeared in an in-plane geometry, in which the electric field moved sideways through the material. Real-world devices such as voltage-tunable capacitors used in microwave circuits generally require an out-of-plane design, in which the electric field moves vertically through the film, enabling smaller, more efficient components.

Researchers spent a decade trying to find a way to preserve their low microwave loss while making them more tunable and more practical. They then asked a more radical question: what if they could change the symmetry of the material itself? If so, it might be possible to change the symmetry in a specific family of Ruddlesden-Popper compounds made from barium, strontium, titanium, and oxygen.

In a true multi-institution effort with collaborators at Cornell, the University of Connecticut, Rice University, the University of Maryland, Boise State University and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), they engineered a new version of the material by inserting carefully spaced rock-salt layers. The strategy effectively rewrote the material’s internal rules, allowing it to exhibit the out-of-plane behavior needed for practical devices while preserving the low-loss characteristics that had made the Ruddlesden-Popper thin films attractive in the first place.

By engineering a film structure that introduces a unique rock-salt atomic layer interleaved with every “n” perovskite unit cell, the researchers created a new class of thin films whose symmetry properties could be precisely controlled (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Researchers used advanced microscopy to confirm the atomic structure of an engineered Ruddlesden-Popper material. The diagrams show how alternating layers in the crystal helped produce the material’s unusual combination of tunability and low energy loss. Source: Cornell University

From possible breakthrough to despair, then to a solution

But this success led to another dead-end, as the new out-of-plane devices posed an entirely different metrology problem. The frequencies most relevant for modern communications systems are among the most difficult to measure accurately because at those high frequencies, the signal from the material can be distorted by the test structure itself—the metal electrodes, wiring, and geometries surrounding the dielectric. So, when the researchers first tested the new Ruddlesden-Popper devices at microwave frequencies, the results were confusing.

Addressing this issue, a NIST-based group began to develop a new metrology approach capable of characterizing the material in an out-of-plane, metal-insulator-metal capacitor geometry at frequencies beyond the reach of conventional techniques. They added a “control structure” using a sheet of metal that had the same topology as the device. Measuring that control structure let the team perform an additional round of calibration, subtracting away distortions caused by the test structure itself, and isolating the dielectric’s true microwave response (Figure 2).

Figure 2 The microwave measurement setup used by the NIST team in Boulder, Colorado. Source: NIST via Cornell University

Their custom-tailored composition exhibits a remarkable relative tunability of 51% under an applied electric field of 250 kV/cm, which is almost double the performance of many conventional tunable dielectrics. At the same time, it maintains an impressively low dielectric loss that translates to a material quality factor of about 200. For the best version, the measured dielectric tuning figure of merit (FOM) showed tenfold improvement for out-of-plane tunable dielectrics at 10 GHz.

Figure 3 Various perspectives on microwave characterization are displayed at ambient temperature. Source: Cornell University

Will this lead to new varactors that you can buy? Obviously, it’s too early to say; there are still many potential obstacles on the path to commercialization, if it even happens.

But I do think the right screenwriter could make an exciting story out of this long quest with its advances, insight, contrary thinking, roadblocks, and eventual success. It would be nice to see a true story of science discovery and innovation captured and brought to a more general audience (can you think of any recent ones other than the 2023 blockbuster movie Oppenheimer?).

The work is detailed in their intense paper with a deceptively simple title “Breaking symmetry yields a low-loss out-of-plane tunable microwave dielectric” published in Nature Electronics; while that paper is behind a paywall, a “student” preprint copy is posted at ResearchGate here. In addition, there’s a fairly technical yet very readable description of the work posted at Bioengineer.org (why there—I can’t say).

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

• Read this and give electric insulation a second thought
• Stretchable RF material’s permittivity goes with the flow
• No place to hide from PCB thermal and RF considerations
• Shape-shifting structure has user-controlled RF properties

The post Deep physics, materials science enhance dielectrics, varactors appeared first on EDN.

The iconic LM2917 tackles frequency-to-current conversion with (very) few externals.

Almost exactly 50 years ago—in June 1976, to be precise—National Semiconductor introduced the LM29x7 series, offering deceptively simple monolithic solutions to a frequently encountered signal processing problem: the flexible and accurate conversion of frequency into an analog signal.  I say “deceptively simple” because actually, these chips are very capable interfaces with versatile inputs, internal active zener voltage references (with the LM2917), and a configurable output that includes an opamp-driven uncommitted Darlington transistor.

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

Although initially targeted at automotive applications, the LM29x7 series’ flexibility makes them highly handy in other contexts, including industrial applications like monitoring turbine-type flow meter flow rate and small motor tachometry. Figure 1’s facile conversion of a frequency input to a universal 4-20mA current loop format shows how minimalist—it makes do with just nine paltry passives—such a circuit can be when implemented with a LM2917.

Figure 1 A 2917 with internal voltage reference converts a 0-5kHz input to a 4-20mA output.  Single-pass calibration of both ends of the output span is available. First step: input 0Hz and adjust R1 for 4mA output. Second step: input 5kHz and adjust R2 for 20mA. Third step: there is no third step. You’re done.

Here’s how it works.

Incoming pulses are converted by the internal Schmidt trigger comparator and charge pump into constant-current (180uA) pulses delivered to pin 3. Each pulse cycle carries a charge quantum Qp = VzC1 so that the average current out of pin 3 as a function of the Finput frequency is I3 = Fin Qp = Fin Vz C1. For the values shown, that works out to I3 = 7.56uA/kHz = 0 to 38uA as Fin goes from 0 to 5kHz. For calibration stability, C1 should be a temperature-stable type like C0G.

The R1…R4 resistor network hung from pin 3 converts this 0 to 38uA to 0 to 4v which is added to a 1v offset supplied by R3. The resulting 1 to 5v total is converted by the internal output opamp and Darlington via current sense R6 to the final 4 to 20mA output. R7 provides some bias current cancellation, which is useful since the thirsty opamp inputs can draw as much a 500nA. If uncorrected, that could create a 50mV voltage offset error on pin 3. Meanwhile, C2 provides ripple-suppression filtering.

However, none of this explains why R1 and R2 are variable. Here’s why. Although U1’s spec’d linearity and temperature coefficient are good, its initial tolerances aren’t so great: about +/-10%.  See “gain constant K” in Table 7.5 here (PDF). Therefore some post-assembly final calibration is pretty much unavoidable, which is the purpose of R1’s (4mA zero) and R2’s (20mA full-scale 5kHz) tweakability.  But at least if you do the adjustments in the right order (first R1, then R2), they won’t interact and calibration can be completed in s single pass.

So it shouldn’t Hz too much. (No such promises for his jokes, however! Ed.)

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

• Transistor and FVCs make linear anemometer
• Simple but accurate 4 to 20 mA two-wire transmitter for PRTDs
• Programmable current source with overtemperature shutoff
• Basic design equations for three precision current sources
• Silly simple precision 0/20mA to 4/20mA converter

The post Painlessly convert Hz to 4-20mA current loop appeared first on EDN.

Are you an engineer contemplating your next “skillset” move in the AI era? If so, the ‘Mind of the Engineer’ survey is for you. The survey delves into multiple engineering disciplines, the latest technology trends, and emerging design skillsets to formulate empirical observations about where today’s engineering landscape is heading and how engineers should prepare for this AI-powered paradigm shift.

More importantly, this survey touches a hot nerve: AI’s potential to eliminate engineering jobs. Will AI fundamentally change what it means to be an engineer in the next five years? And do engineers trust AI-generated outputs, and do these outputs reflect biases in training data?

The survey also tests grounds for young engineers, where AI and machine learning (ML) skills are hot favorites. Will these disciplines take over computer science and engineering? Should engineers go for self-study efforts through books, papers, blogs, and YouTube videos, or should they opt for education courses or certificates with Coursera, edX, Udemy, and IEEE?

The survey also attempts to gauge where engineers stand in terms of effectively using AI tools in electronics design and manufacturing processes. That includes agentic AI, formal AI, AI certifications, LLMs, and AI-assisted EDA tools. Also, how comfortable engineers are in AI/ML model development and deployment.

The survey also digs deeper into how engineers are using chatbots/assistants such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Copilot Chat. Then there are AI coding assistants like GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Tabnine. The survey attempts to establish where these tools stand in an engineer’s day-to-day work and what the actual productivity gains are.

That brings us to a sensitive and crucial issue: Will AI tools eliminate more engineering jobs than they create? Are AI tools making engineers significantly more productive overall? Will AI fundamentally change what it means to be an engineer in the coming years?

However, the survey isn’t all about AI; cybersecurity and quantum computing are presented as pressing issues on many engineers’ minds. For instance, where does quantum computing stand in its deployment timeline? And how aware engineers are in terms of quantum-safe products and post-quantum cryptography.

Next, the survey covers quickly emerging technologies such as chiplets and advanced packaging. Likewise, power electronics stars—silicon carbide (SiC) and gallium nitride (GaN)—are also there. Not to be discounted, edge AI, a rapidly emerging offshoot of AI technology, is there as well.

AspenCore, publisher of EDN, is conducting the “Voice of the Engineer” survey. Once you complete this survey, you will become eligible to be randomly selected as one of 10 respondents to receive an Amazon.com Gift Card valued at USD 100 (or local equivalent). Results of this survey will be announced at a major industry event with a fanfare. They will also be posted on EE Times, EDN’s sister publication.

Participate in the survey and be part of this timely engineering conversation about the future of AI and the electronics industry at large.

Related Content

• Mind of the engineer: IoT tops new technologies adopted
• ‘Mind of Engineer’ study spotlights global design challenge
• Engineers Are More Harried, But Still Happy With Their Jobs
• 2020 Mind of the Engineer Survey Reveals Distinct Design Cultures

The post ‘Mind of the Engineer’ survey: A reality check on where EEs stand on AI appeared first on EDN.

If you periodically need to see the frequency response of a circuit, this easy, inexpensive project can help you out.

Editor’s note: This is a two-part series on how to create a noise generator with an adjustable bandwidth and a consistent amplitude. The previous entry: 

• Making noise with a BANG, part 1: Concept and hardware

The operation and firmware

As I mentioned last time, I was able to reuse much of the firmware from a previous Design Idea project. The Arduino C code consists of three files. One is the initialization code for the DAC, while another contains code for the LCD/touch screen operations. The third is the main code. Let’s look at these one at a time.

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

The DAC initialization code does just what it says and is designed to get a DAC output as fast as possible. The LCD/touch screen code is the largest piece of the software puzzle. Before discussing it “under the hood”, let’s take a quick look at the some of the LCD/touch screen display outputs. Figure 1 shows most of the screens used in the BANG.

Figure 1 The BANG LCD screens are designed to be both intuitive and informative.

The first screen you see after the power-up splash screen is what I call the main screen. It allows you to select an output, but let’s hold off discussing this implementation aspect in detail until later. For now, just understand that on power-up, it will default to the noise output on the AC and DC BNC connectors.

Also on the main screen is the “Change Bandwidth” selection that will allow you to set the bandwidth for the noise (noise bandwidth is measured from 0 Hz). When you press “Change Bandwidth”, the screen will change to the keypad and allow you to enter your desired number. Note that if you exceed the maximum 225 kHz it will default to 225 kHz. Similarly, if you enter a number less than the minimum of 500 Hz it will default to 500 Hz. After hitting “ENTER” you will return to the main screen.

On the main screen, selecting “About” will take you to a screen showing lots of interesting information such as your selected bandwidth and the gain it will apply to the noise during filtering. You’ll also see the sample rate (which is fixed), firmware version, and (for those that are interested) your current IIR filter’s coefficients. Next, it shows the battery voltage and charge level. (If you do not have a battery installed you may see fully charged numbers as it is instead reporting the charger voltage. There is a #define in the top portion of the main code that you can set to “false” instead, in which case this line won’t be displayed if you don’t have a battery installed.) The last item shown is the incoming USB voltage.

The last screen shown in Figure 1 is the one displayed when “RUN” is selected on the main screen. If you see this screen, the noise signal is being generated and is being output to the BNC connectors.

Let’s talk a little about the code for creating these screens. It’s a bit long and mostly involves setting colors, drawing boxes, selecting fonts, aligning text in the box, and capturing positions of key presses. Almost all of this is done using higher level calls to the downloadable “Adafruit GFX Graphics Library”. Here’s a short example of the code showing how to display the word “BANG” in red against a grey background:

tft.fillScreen(tft.color565(0xe0, 0xe0, 0xe0)); // Grey tft.setFont(&FreeSansBoldOblique50pt7b); tft.setTextColor(ILI9341_RED); tft.setTextSize(1); tft.setCursor(13, 100); tft.print("BANG");

The third C file is the main code, which mostly directs calls to the correct LCD screen, executes miscellaneous housekeeping operations, and (of course) generates the noise signal, the latter starting with the bandwidth selected from the touchscreen. Using this value, we generate the coefficients for a digital 2-pole low-pass Butterworth IIR filter. The next step is to get a value for the gain we will be using on the noise signal. This is done by calling a function that has the bandwidth as an input and returns a gain number. Here is the code for that function:

//****************************************************** // AGC * // Does an automatic gain adjust to the * // random number amplitude. Run once after * // startup or a change in the LP filter. * //****************************************************** float AGC(float cutoff_freq) { float agcGain = 1; // Calculate agc gain based on the set bandwidth if (cutoff_freq >= 50000) agcGain = 31.0 * pow(cutoff_freq, -0.292); // for 225kHz to 50kHz else agcGain = 393.769851 * pow((cutoff_freq - 97.8961702), -0.524598029); // Curve fit of freq vs. amplitude data gainOffset = 1024.0f * (2.0f - agcGain); // Adjustment for shift in DC level return agcGain; }

You’ll see that there are two different formulas used for agcGain, based on whether the bandwidth selected is greater than 50 kHz. This dual-equation method makes curve fitting more accurate. These formulas were derived from data I generated by setting a bandwidth and then adjusting the gain in code to get a desired amplitude. The data was then used to generate curve-fitted equations (kudos to Standards Applied Engineering Tools, whose Curve Fitting Online utility gave by far the most accurate curve fit of all the tools I found and tried). Later, I’ll also detail how AI did (or, maybe more accurately, didn’t) with generating the same curve fit equation(s).

You can see from the second equation that the power function is based on -0.52; roughly the square root of 2 as we talked about at the beginning of part 1 of this series. The reason it is not exactly a square root of 2 function is because some noise, beyond the cutoff frequency of the 2-pole digital IIR filter, still exists in this roll-off portion of the filtered signal – i.e., it is not a brick wall filter.

Figure 2 shows a graph of this gain vs. bandwidth selected.

Figure 2 This graph shows the linear gain vs. bandwidth result for the equations used in this design.

With the bandwidth entered and the gain calculated, it is then incorporated into the coefficients of the lowpass IIR filter. This approach optimizes the calculations; we don’t need to add another multiplier inside the speed-optimized output loop.

Ok: we’re now ready to generate the noise signal. When the user selects “RUN”, the code enters a tight loop. In it, we get a random number from the true random number generator (TRNG). Next, we run the number through the IIR filter, which also applies the gain. Then, the lower 12 bits of this number are sent out of the DAC. (A note: the DAC has a slew rate of somewhere around 1 µS per volt to minimize the effect. The number is scaled to keep the signal mean coming from the DAC to around 1/2 Vcc.) This loop continues until the user selects “STOP”.

Those of you following closely may be thinking something along the lines of the following right now: “Another way to generate a noise signal of a given amplitude is to simply generate the random samples at a lower sample rate”. The downside of this alternative approach is that the analog reconstruction filter would need to be adjusted to follow the sample rate, which seems like a much more difficult analog design task. Also, we would still need to perform the digital low-pass filtering for anti-aliasing.

It’s time to look at the output of the BANG. Figure 3’s scope display shows the AC output time domain signal on the left and the FFT on the right. The BANG is set to give an output with a 25 kHz bandwidth.

Figure 3 This scope plot shows the BANG output with a 25 kHz bandwidth setting.

The enclosure

The BANG’s enclosure derives from a custom 3D-printable model (see later for a file-download link). It includes three parts: the main body, the base/PCB mount, and a stylus for the touchscreen. The main body’s download is modeled with two filament colors but can alternatively be printed in one color. If printed in a single color, the text is still readable, as it is also embossed. The base holds a 120 mm x 80 mm PCB. I used a protoboard as there were a minimal number of parts and was faster to build than designing and waiting for a custom PCB.

Wait, there’s more

While TRNGs are common in larger processors, they’re more rare in smaller micros. Most compilers therefore use pseudo-random number generators instead. But since this system was generating 32-bit true random numbers, it occurred to me that such a data stream may also have other uses, such as in cryptography systems, input data for testing code, a “seed” for pseudo-random number generators, or even helping you select “picks” for playing the lottery.

More broadly, it seemed like a waste to not have a way to output these generated numbers. So, I included support for this feature, via USB, in two format options – ASCII data or binary data. The desired format can be chosen from the “Select Output” LCD page shown in Figure 4 (as mentioned earlier, the power-up default is the noise generator output via the analog BNC connectors).

Figure 4 The design includes support for outputting the 32-bit true random numbers generated, over USB and in two format options.

Note that although the data is 32 bits, it can be sliced or appended to form any size random number you require. For example, you can use one bit of the 32-bit source, which will still be random, or you can append two 32-bit output numbers to create a truly random 64-bit number.

Comments on AI use

I only used AI (and then only experimentally) for one part of the project, the curve fitting of test data to create the equation(s) for the AGC. The result was…interesting. I’d already developed the earlier discussed frequency-to-gain equations for the AGC algorithm, but I thought I should also try AI to see what it came up with. I fired up Microsoft Copilot and gave it the frequency vs gain data that I’d already created by iteratively setting a frequency and then adjusting gain in the code until I got the fixed amplitude I was looking for.

Copilot noted that it looked like a power equation – good. Then it gave me a very simple equation: gain = 1.96 * freq-0.52 . Wow, I thought, much simpler than the equations I’d came up with. But it seemed too good to be true, so I got out a calculator. At a frequency of 10 kHz the gain should be around 3. When you make the calculation on the AI’s formula you get around 0.016. When I asked Copilot to use its equation on 10 kHz, it said the gain would be 3.68. Another AI with a case of cognitive dissonance. Perhaps obviously, I used the other formula instead!

Conclusion

This is a fairly easy and inexpensive project to build. If you periodically have the need to see the frequency response of a circuit, it may help you out.

Note that the schematic, code, 3D print files, Arduino software, links related to various parts of the project, and additional notes and pictures on the project’s design and construction can be downloaded for free at the MakerWorld website.

Damian Bonicatto is a consulting engineer with decades of experience in embedded hardware, firmware, and system design. He holds over 30 patents.

Phoenix Bonicatto is a freelance writer.

Related Content

• Making noise with a BANG, part 1: Concept and hardware
• A digital filter system (DFS), Part 1
• A digital filter system (DFS), Part 2

The post Making noise with a BANG, part 2: Software, integration and operating results appeared first on EDN.

Conflicting application requirements can turn system-on-chip (SoC) design into a hall of mirrors. In particular, choosing a process technology can become a maze of contradictions and puzzles.

Then there is higher speed, which generally requires more power. Next, the technology that delivers the necessary performance and power efficiency may be unacceptable due to cost or supply-chain constraints.

However, a design partner who can customize foundational IP—logic cell libraries or memories—and shepherd the custom cells through the design flow, manufacturing, and testing can often bring an SoC design safely through the maze.

One recent engagement with a crypto-mining client illustrates the importance of custom foundational IP in resolving these trade-offs. And it also shows how the impact of custom cells can ripple through the design flow, from tape-out and beyond, emphasizing the need for a design partner with expertise in both IP creation and SoC implementation.

A unique application

Crypto mining is the process of generating new coins in a cryptocurrency. For many such currencies, including the ubiquitous Bitcoin, the process requires a so-called proof-of-effort: a computationally intensive task with no known shortcut.

Factoring a huge number is an example: the only way to find the prime factors is to keep trying new prime numbers. In principle, the cryptocurrency’s governors would publish a large number, the crypto miners would set to work searching for factors, and the first miner to publish all the factors would receive a new coin.

Obviously—luck aside—the miners with the most computing power will get the most coins. That leads to a computing arms race. Less obviously, this game consumes a tremendous amount of energy—one reason China attempted to ban crypto mining in 2021. To make the enterprise profitable, the miners need to stay on the leading edge of computing performance while minimizing capital investment and operating costs. These costs are dominated by power consumption.

Under those pressures, crypto miners quickly migrated from farms of CPU-based server boards to FPGAs, and then to vast arrays of ASIC hardware. Today, miners demand high computing performance, very low power consumption, very low front-end investment, and low unit cost—a set of contradictory requirements.

The mining SoC

This was the scenario presented to us by our crypto-mining client. Together, we determined that the lowest-cost approach that met their performance and power requirements would be a FinFET process with an extremely low operating voltage.

In fact, we had fully characterized 0.5-V logic libraries for this process. There was just one problem. The library could not meet the client’s speed requirements. The problem, it turned out, was the registers. This library, like virtually all standard logic libraries, uses a conventional master-slave D-type flip-flop. But it could not operate reliably at the required clock frequency. So, we decided to create a custom D-type flip-flop cell.

The D flip-flop

The D-type flip-flop has been a fundamental element in digital design for decades, used for everything from state machines to registers (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Schematic highlights a 32-bit D-flip-flop used to implement D-type registers. Source: Faraday Technology

The cell’s performance and stability are vital to any RTL design. The conventional cell design uses two stages and two clock phases. The first stage captures the input data on one clock edge, and the second stage latches the captured data on the second clock edge. In most designs, this requires routing two very accurately timed clock phases to every flip-flop cell.

We believed we could eliminate one of these clock signals and achieve a higher operating speed. Eliminating one clock would also substantially reduce the cell’s power dissipation and could reduce area and routing congestion.

But could we accomplish this, and hit the required frequency? And could we do all that while sacrificing the inherent stability of the dual-phase clock approach and still have a device that is resistant to process variations and electrical upset?

The TSPC flip-flop

Our exploration of circuit designs led to the development of the true single-phase clock (TSPC) D-type flip-flop (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Schematic of a traditional positive-edge triggered TSPC flip-flop showing how a TSPC flip-flop would meet the customer’s power requirements. Our proposed circuit design allowed the TSPC flip-flop to also operate over the necessary frequency range. Source: Faraday Technology

However, circuit design and proof of concept were just the beginning. We fully simulated the circuit in SPICE to understand the layout and sensitivities of this novel cell. We needed to characterize the TSPC flip-flop not only in isolation but also in a dense layout surrounded by other cells, under marginal, noisy clocks, and process variations. At last, we reached our goals for both performance and reliability.

The SoC design using our TSPC flip-flop met our crypto-mining client’s speed requirements. The cell also achieved a 40% reduction in power at rated speed compared to the conventional D-type flip-flop cell it replaced. It reduced the area by about 7%. And from a functional perspective, the TSPC cell was simply a normal D-type flip-flop.

But our detailed characterization of the cell revealed differences in the new device’s operating characteristics. These differences would influence the implementation flow for the SoC.

The cell in use

One unique characteristic of the TSPC cell influences front-end design, specifically power management planning. The single-phase clock for the TSPC flip-flop must not stop during operation, or the flip-flop state may be lost. This places significant limits on the use of power-management techniques such as clock gating and clock throttling. A design that interrupts the register clock must tolerate an unpredictable state when the clock resumes.

Other special characteristics of the cell further influence downstream design. For example, the cell is quite sensitive to clock signal integrity. This requires careful, skilled planning of clock networks from the outset and equally careful routing of clock trees. Conventional clock-tree synthesis tools may not deliver the necessary signal quality across all flip-flop instances, resulting in unreliable operation.

The cell is also sensitive to process variations, even at a local level. This issue can impact yield, but it can be overcome by careful placement during logic layout. We generally use manual insertion to instantiate the TSPC cells, as we have found them unsuitable for use with synthesis tools. Once the cells are placed, routing constraints are relatively minimal. The foremost issue is to maintain signal integrity on the clock lines.

Timing analysis is straightforward, of course, using the TSPC cell’s timing data. Signoff is also conventional—with the enhanced attention to clock integrity. Thanks to our exhaustive characterization and refinement of the cell design, there are no special process corners to be investigated. During test, some changes to the test vectors may be helpful to inspect the unique behavior of the cells.

A new degree of freedom

SoC designers are used to trading off power, speed, and process to meet design requirements. But sometimes no setting of these knobs will achieve the desired result. Our crypto-mining client faced this challenge: running an affordable, available FinFET process at 0.5 V would achieve all design goals except maximum speed. But consuming more power or moving to a more advanced process node in exchange for more speed was not an acceptable trade-off.

The solution was to move outside the power-performance process box with customized foundational logic. Faraday determined that we could meet the client’s needs with only one custom cell—a novel D-type flip-flop design. But once characterized, we found that the cell would place significant demands on the implementation team, from power planning through test design (Figure 3).

Figure 3 To reduce power consumption, we used a TSPC circuit to replace a master-slave flip-flop; but TSPC has an operating frequency limit, so we proposed a solution to this limitation. Source: Faraday Technology

The TSPC flip-flop thus could have become only academic exercise. However, it became an out of the box solution here. Today, the crypto-mining SoC is in volume production and meets all design requirements. The chips are out there, searching for coins and earning their living.

Jason Kang is director of IP technology at Faraday Technology. He has over 20 years of experience in fundamental IP development, PDK integration, and IP model characterization. His expertise lies at the intersection of advanced-node design flows, device modeling, and EDA methodologies, with a strategic focus on silicon implementation and the emerging field of AI-driven design automation.

Related Content

• Bitcoin ASIC in Chips-to-$ Race
• Design Houses Bank on AI, Bitcoin
• Crypto Mining ASIC Goes Deep Sub-Threshold On 3 nm

The post Crypto mining SoC unearths a need for custom IP appeared first on EDN.

Whether it actually accomplishes the function intended (or at least asserted), the low price tag and enduring controversy sufficed to motivate a look inside.

Electronic pest control devices have a longstanding reputation (largely-to-completely justified, my own research of others’ studies has concluded) for being ineffective at encouraging mice and other rodents, along with a variety of insects and arachnids, to flee in their actively broadcasting presence. Sometimes it’s because they don’t work at all; the speaker inside might be a flat-out “dummy”, or at minimum nonfunctional over the claimed operating frequency range, for example (all conveniently obscured by the fact that you’re not supposed to be able to hear them anyway). And even when working as designed, there’s little to no evidence that ultrasonic pummeling does anything meaningful to deter pests, particularly after long-term use.

That all said, a teardown video from fellow teardown-er “Big Clive” that I recently came across still piqued my interest.

Clive, like me, made no definitive judgement as to the functional viability of the device, while still noting the overall skepticism derived by studies from others. That said, observations such as the following would, I felt, be unexpected in a product solely intended as a scam:

The PCB in this unit looks very competently designed, with good clearances and logical design. The bulk of the unit’s magic is in the software, and they’ve been quite clever in creating a swept ultrasonic output, while also pulse width modulating the indicator LED. It could even be said that the programmer may have been showboating.

So, when I subsequently came across a set of six ultrasonic pest repellers selling for $14.99 total, I couldn’t resist (nor could others, apparently, as inventory eventually sold out). They’re AC-powered, and each unit is claimed to cover up to 1,600 square feet. I’ll start with some “stock” shots, several of which include “creative” grammar and spelling terms. Can you spot them?

Dual smart chip? Inquiring minds want to know.

I’m not going to proactively point out all of the “creative” English language examples in these, to avoid ruining your investigatory fun, but “Desinsectisation” is just…awesome.

A half dozen for a bit more than a dozen (dollars)

Now for some real-life shots, as usual beginning with the outer box, also as usual accompanied by a 0.75″ (19.1 mm) diameter U.S. penny for size comparison purposes:

I couldn’t resist:

Now let’s peer inside:

Remove one of the still-wrapped devices:

and the sliver of literature below them comes into view:

which, of course, I promptly tore while getting it out:

English on one side I’d expected. German on the other? Unexpected.

Here’s our now-“unclothed” patient:

When I first glanced at the screw heads on the back side, their seeming deviation had me wondering whether this was some sort of crude intrusion-prevention security scheme.

Turns out the bottom one had just come into my possession already partially stripped:

And have you yet noticed a curious omission both from the outer packaging and the device itself? Ponder for a bit…I’m not going anywhere…

…time’s up! Although there’s a FCC logo on the back of the box, there’s no actual FCC certification ID to be found anywhere. Even though…y’know…it’s a broadcast device. Anyhoo, onward:

Let’s plug ‘er in before taking ‘er apart. Thar she glows, just like in the stock photos:

For what it’s worth, my Collie seemingly wasn’t phased in the slightest by the supposed ultrasonic broadcast!

Getting to the guts

And now let’s dive inside:

Here’s the supposed ultrasonic-frequency transducer:

and the diminutive PCB:

See that screw, identical to the other two you’ve already seen, at the bottom? Interestingly, at least to me, there’s another screw hole, this one unpopulated, above the PCB. Apparently, the chassis was designed for multiple PCB variants, including one larger than this one. Regardless, removing the screw led to subsequent easy removal of the PCB itself.

Leaving nothing particularly exciting behind.

Let’s start with the PCB front side, which you’ve already seen in several past photos:

There are indeed two main ICs here, to the earlier “dual chip” reference, although still stretching the association. The upper four-lead one, toward the left side of the photo, is faintly marked “MB6F” and appears to be a bridge rectifier, with the “BD1” PCB mark presumably standing for “bridge diode” (not, in this case at least, ferrite bead). Its presumed-by-me function, as we’ve seen before, is to act as a crude AC/DC converter in conjunction with a yet-to-be-seen low pass filter (capacitor).

The other IC, labeled U1, eight-lead and below and to the right of its companion, is absent any topside mark and therefore something of a mystery, although if I was a betting man, I’d lay odds it’s an inexpensive MCU, akin to the one in Big Clive’s teardown victim. What about those glowing LEDs you saw in the earlier plugged-in device photo? They’re at the far upper right and left, with their PCB markings on the other side, which you’ll see next.

They operate somewhat oddly. When I preview them through my smartphone’s camera and display in “still” image capture mode, they generally blink at what I’m guessing is a 60-Hz rate. That said, they also occasionally dim and then return to their prior illumination intensity, and sometimes the blinking also temporarily ceases. When previewed in “video” mode on the smartphone (which I know because I tried to capture a clip of the aforementioned behavior), they exhibit constant illumination. Mysterious!

You might have also noticed PCB sites for two other LEDs, LED3 and LED4, although they seem to be unpopulated, along with multiple other unpopulated locations on this side of the PCB. Chassis placeholders for multiple PCBs…placeholders for additional components on this PCB variant…once again, all very mysterious!

In closing, let’s flip the PCB over.

At top is capacitor C2 which, given its proximity both to the AC inputs to the PCB and to the bridge rectifier, I’m guessing is our aforementioned low-pass filter. The resistor below is specifically labeled “FR1”, presumably referencing its augmented fuse function.

Aside from one other electrolytic capacitor, along with pass-through holes to solder sites on the other side of the PCB for the dual two-wire harnesses (one going to the “ultrasonic speaker”, the other to the AC plug), that’s it of note.

And with that, I’ll conclude for today. At some point after this teardown is published, as usual allowing time for reader questions, I’ll put the device back together, presumably still functional afterward (to whatever degree that term is relevant in this particular case).

But what do I do then? Donate the lot to some pest-plagued recipient hoping against hope for a miracle? Or donate all of ’em to the dump? Let me know your thoughts on this ethical quagmire, or anything else I’ve discussed here, in the comments!

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

Related Content

• Automatic Ultrasonic Yard Guard
• Ultrasonic Frequencies For Repelling Insects & Pests
• Electronic Mosquito Repellent Circuit
• Dissecting an underwhelming dog bark controller
• Dog Repellent Circuit
• Dog Repellent Ultrasonic Circuit 2

The post Ultrasonic device claims to repel pests appeared first on EDN.

What looks like a simple port is in fact a silent architect—quietly shaping how energy and data flow between your car and your mobile world. Hidden inside that small rectangle of metal and plastic is a choreography of power regulation, signal integrity, and protocol negotiation.

It’s the unseen engineering that turns a “plug” into a lifeline, ensuring your EV and your phone don’t just connect, but truly communicate.

From socket to smart port

Once upon a dashboard, the humble “cigarette lighter” socket was nothing more than a dumb power tap—12 volts, no questions asked. Fast forward to today, and the USB-C port in your EV is no longer a passive outlet; it’s an intelligent node in a vast digital ecosystem. That tiny connector is the handshake between two massive computers: your phone and your car.

It juggles a delicate balance, delivering high-wattage energy to keep devices alive while simultaneously orchestrating millisecond-sensitive data streams that define navigation, entertainment, and even safety. In short, your USB port is not just a plug; it’s a bridge, a translator, and a silent engineer behind the scenes of modern mobility.

Power architecture: From traction to tablet

Unlike traditional cars, EVs don’t carry an alternator humming under the hood. Instead, they rely on a DC-DC converter—a silent workhorse that steps down the traction battery’s 400-V or even 800-V supply to the familiar 12-V rail that powers the cabin. That same rail feeds the USB ports, infotainment systems, and auxiliary electronics.

Think of it as an “infinite power bank”: charging your phone at 15 W for an hour consumes only about 0.015 kWh. Put that in perspective, a 75 kWh Tesla battery could technically recharge an iPhone 15 Pro Max more than 4,000 times. In other words, your EV’s energy reserves make mobile charging almost trivial, yet the engineering behind that seamless handoff is anything but.

Figure 1 Onboard DC-DC converter services the low-voltage auxiliary rail by extracting energy from the high-voltage traction battery. Source: Brogen EV Solution

Sidenote: Instead of combustion fuel, the high-voltage traction pack stores electrical energy at hundreds of volts, driving the motor and, through the DC-DC converter, sustaining the 12-V system.

The “signal” side: The handshake

If the power architecture is the muscle, the signal side is the brain. In USB-C, no current flows until a negotiation takes place. That negotiation happens over the Configuration Channel (CC) pins, where your EV and your phone exchange digital hellos before any electrons move.

Through this handshake, they decide critical roles: Who is the host? (almost always the car), and how much voltage can the phone safely accept?—whether it’s 5 V for legacy devices, 9 V or 15 V for fast-charging, or even 20 V for high-power modes. Only after this millisecond-level dialogue does energy begin to flow, ensuring that what looks like a simple plug-in is actually a carefully choreographed agreement between two computers.

Figure 2 Integrated electronics drive a 60-W USB-C car power socket, providing native support for Power Delivery, Quick Charge, and other fast-charging protocols. Source: Pro Car

Once the roles and voltage levels are agreed, the conversation doesn’t stop—it deepens into data protocols. Over the very same power pins, USB Power Delivery (USB-PD) runs a digital dialogue, negotiating charging speed and ensuring both sides stay within safe limits.

Parallel to that, separate high-speed differential pairs carry the real payload: the streams of audio, video, and control signals that make Apple CarPlay and Android Auto feel seamless. In effect, your EV’s USB port is multitasking—one channel whispering about volts and watts, another racing to deliver maps, playlists, and messages—all in perfect sync.

The challenge: Noise and interference

Your EV’s cabin is far from electrically serene. High-frequency switching from motor inverters and power electronics creates a “dirty” environment filled with electromagnetic noise. To keep your USB connection clean, manufacturers rely on shielded twisted pairs (STP) cables designed to resist interference and preserve signal integrity, so your music and navigation don’t glitch under the influence of stray magnetic fields.

But shielding alone isn’t enough. The electronics inside the USB interface must also withstand sudden voltage spikes and magnetic surges. That’s where common-mode transient immunity (CMTI) comes in; it’s a design requirement that ensures the transceivers can survive and keep data flowing even when the EV’s power electronics throw out nanosecond-scale noise bursts. Without strong CMTI performance, those spikes could corrupt packets or drop connections.

Figure 3 Oscillogram illustrates an EV-style CMTI spike waveform during a high-speed transient event. Source: Author (AI-generated)

Sidenote: In high-performance EV architectures, the drive for faster switching efficiency can turn CMTI into a critical bottleneck. As platforms move to 800-V systems, the steep voltage transitions (dv/dt) from wide bandgap (WBG) semiconductors—notably SiC and GaN—produce intense high-frequency transients. These spikes can leak through parasitic capacitances in isolation barriers (in gate drivers or digital isolators), risking shoot-through events where both switches conduct simultaneously, a destructive failure mode for traction inverters.

Especially, GaN’s ultra-fast switching makes it more vulnerable. To protect control logic and safeguard costly WBG modules, modern EV designs now require isolated gate drivers with ultra-high CMTI ratings (often >150 kV/µs, specified for both positive-and negative-going transients), a design safeguard that directly underpins range, reliability, and performance.

Also, it’s worth noting that there are two types of CMTI: static and dynamic. Static CMTI refers to the test condition where the input is held at a fixed logic high or logic low, and the output state is monitored during a common-mode transient strike. The requirement is that the gate driver output remains in its specified state across variations in process, voltage, and temperature.

Dynamic CMTI, by contrast, evaluates immunity while the device is actively switching. This measures whether the transient causes timing jitter or pulse distortion—making it the more demanding metric and the true limiter in fast-transition EV platforms using WBG devices.

And then there’s the subtle menace of ground loops: a cheap, poorly shielded cable can create electrical conflict between the car’s ground and your phone’s ground, producing that familiar buzzing in the speakers. What seems like a trivial accessory choice can make the difference between crystal-clear audio and noisy rides.

Why do some ports “only charge”

Ever noticed that not every USB port in your car lets you run CarPlay or Android Auto? That’s by design. Many automakers follow a hub strategy: one “Master Data Port” up front, usually near the driver, and several “dummy ports” in the rear that are charge-only. The reason is cost and complexity.

A data-capable port requires an automotive-grade controller, shielded wiring, and careful integration into the infotainment system—all of which add expense and engineering overhead. By contrast, a charge-only port is far simpler: just a buck converter stepping down voltage to feed your device. It’s a deliberate hardware trade-off, balancing convenience for passengers with the realities of automotive design budgets.

V2L: The ultimate USB upgrade

If USB-C feels powerful, Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) takes the idea to an entirely new scale. Cars like the Hyundai IONIQ 5 or Kia EV6 don’t stop at charging your phone; they turn the whole vehicle into a rolling generator. Instead of 60 W from a USB-C port, V2L delivers up to 3.6 kW through a standard AC outlet at 120 V (North America) or 230 V (Europe/Asia). That’s enough to run a full desk setup: monitor, laptop, and lights, all powered via a USB-C multi-charger.

And in trucks like the Ford F-150 Lightning, the concept scales even further with Pro Power Onboard, offering up to 9.6 kW across multiple AC outlets. At that level, the EV isn’t just a power bank; it’s a backup generator capable of supporting tools, appliances, or even parts of a home during an outage. In essence, V2L is the logical extension of the same engineering principles—scaling from watts to kilowatts—while keeping the promise of mobility and connectivity intact.

Sidenote: V2L technology depends on a coordinated handshake between the vehicle and adapter, primarily through the Proximity Pilot (PP) and Control Pilot (CP) pins defined by IEC 61851. The PP resistor identifies the adapter type and signals readiness, while the CP line maintains PWM-based communication for safe connection and disconnection.

In bi-directional on-board chargers, detection of the correct PP resistance or proprietary handshake prompts the system to enter discharge mode, closing internal contactors to deliver AC power outward. If the CP signal drops or the adapter is unplugged, the vehicle instantly opens the contactors to prevent arcing—ensuring safe, reliable V2L operation across varying manufacturer implementations.

Figure 4 A universal V2L adapter with a mode selector supports multiple EV platforms by initiating the vehicle’s power-discharge sequence. Source: Author

The future: Wireless vs. wired

Convenience is pushing hard toward wireless, but the trade-offs are real. Wireless charging pads promise a cable-free cabin, yet they come with hidden costs: extra heat from inductive transfer and a slight latency in power delivery compared to the precision of a wired USB-C port. That means slower charging and less efficiency, especially when you’re juggling multiple devices.

On the data side, the shift is already happening. Wireless CarPlay and Android Auto bypass the USB port entirely, riding on the car’s internal Wi-Fi signal. In this setup, the USB port is relegated to pure power duty, while your phone streams navigation, music, and messages over a wireless link. It’s a glimpse of the future—where the port becomes less about data and more about energy, while the car’s network takes over the role of digital bridge.

The car as a service

We used to choose cars based on horsepower; now we choose them based on their digital horsepower. Infotainment speed, connectivity options, and seamless integration with our mobile lives have become as decisive as torque or acceleration. And at the center of that experience sits the most-used interface in the cabin: the USB port.

It’s no longer just a plug—it’s the gateway to energy, data, and the services that define modern mobility. In this sense, the car has evolved into a platform, a service hub on wheels, where the humble port is the everyday touchpoint between driver, device, and digital ecosystem.

From volts to vision, engineering isn’t just power, it’s empowerment.

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

• USB Keypad Reference Design
• USB Proves Ready for T&M Tasks
• Top 10 innovative USBs and peripherals
• Take off with Simplified USB Type-C Development
• The USB takeover: Why modern T&M is moving to your pocket
• A quick and practical view of USB Power Delivery (USB-PD) design

The post More than a plug: The hidden USB engineering in your EV appeared first on EDN.

Selective oscillation achieves desired attention aspirations absent undesirable side effects.

Someone I knew long ago had a small electronics company with a client who wanted to make an attention-grabbing light display for a store window. This fellow’s office was set up with six light sources that were to be part of that display, where each source was a mirrored half-globe roughly one foot in diameter with a very bright light bulb that would turn on and off at its own independent rate.

As these bulbs would flash on and off asynchronously, the visual effect was quite stunning. There was one problem, though. Now and then, all six bulbs would go dark at the same time and when they did, the visual effect was actually jarring. That was a problem. I was asked if there was something we could do to avoid the jarring darkness, but quite frankly, I had no idea how this could be achieved with the items at hand.

This past December, a local diner set up a flashing light display out front in celebration of the holiday. It reminded me of my past-history display issue…and then I realized something.

Figure 1 A selective flashing light display still cultivates sizeable viewer attention.

The diner’s flashing light display was as visually striking as the globe set up was supposed to have been, but the diner’s display never went entirely dark. That was because only some of the light sources were blinking. Most of the light sources stayed lit all the time. Only a few of them needed to be blinking to achieve the desired visual effect.

Had I been smarter, I might have been able to solve that client’s problem. But since I don’t have a time machine, I couldn’t go back and do anything.

John Dunn is an electronics consultant and a graduate of The Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (BSEE) and of New York University (MSEE).

Related Content

• Creating smart brightness-controlled lamp with a motion sensor
• Bicycle LED Headlight
• LED driver enables animated automotive lighting

The post Blinkers appeared first on EDN.

The automotive industry is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Vehicles are no longer static machines defined at production. They are becoming dynamic, software-defined platforms that evolve over time through updates, new features, and continuous improvements.

This shift is changing the role of semiconductors. What was once a supporting function is now central to how vehicles operate, differentiate, and deliver value. As software increasingly defines the vehicle experience, compute and power architectures must support far more than fixed functionality.

By the next decade, software-defined vehicle (SDV) architectures are expected to dominate new vehicle platforms. Automakers are investing heavily to move toward systems that can adapt over long lifecycles, even as software and AI evolve at a much faster pace.

The result is a new set of challenges that go beyond incremental improvements in performance.

A growing mismatch between lifecycles

At the core of the SDV transition is a structural mismatch.

While vehicles must operate safely and reliably for more than a decade, software does not follow the same timeline. New capabilities are introduced continuously—through AI model updates, over-the-air (OTA) features, and evolving applications that extend beyond the original vehicle design.

This creates a system that operates on multiple timelines at once. Safety-critical control systems require stability and certification, while AI-driven functions demand flexibility and rapid iteration. Traditional architectures struggle to accommodate both.

The conventional model, built around tightly coupled hardware and software and distributed electronic control units (ECUs), cannot scale to this level of complexity. Even as industry transitions toward centralized and zonal architectures, the underlying challenge remains: how to support continuous evolution without increasing risk.

Compute is now a system-level challenge

At the same time, the demand for in-vehicle compute is increasing dramatically.

Advanced driver assistance, higher levels of autonomy, and AI-driven experiences all require high-performance processing at the edge. These workloads must operate within strict constraints—limited power, tight thermal envelopes, and automotive-grade reliability.

Monolithic system-on-chip (SoC) designs make it difficult to balance these competing demands. A single device must meet performance, cost, safety, and lifecycle requirements simultaneously, which introduces inefficiencies and limits flexibility. As a result, compute is no longer a component decision. It’s a system-level problem that affects how the entire vehicle is designed and evolves over time.

Moving toward heterogeneous and modular architectures

The industry is beginning to respond by shifting toward more flexible architectures.

Instead of integrating all functionality into a single chip, new designs increasingly rely on heterogeneous systems that combine multiple compute elements—CPUs, GPUs, and AI accelerators—working together. This approach allows different parts of the system to be optimized independently while still functioning as a unified platform.

More importantly, it enables alignment with real-world requirements. Safety-critical functions can rely on mature, well-understood technologies, while AI workloads can take advantage of leading-edge processing. Memory, connectivity, and I/O can be placed where they deliver the best efficiency.

This shift reflects a broader transition from optimizing individual components to designing systems that balance performance, cost, and lifecycle considerations.

This system-level evolution is already visible in current automotive compute platforms.

High-performance SoC families such as R‑Car illustrate how architectures are adapting to SDV requirements. These platforms bring together heterogeneous compute, safety capabilities, and efficient power management in a scalable framework that can be deployed across different vehicle domains.

They are designed not only for central compute in ADAS and autonomous applications, but also to integrate with zonal controllers and broader vehicle systems. This enables automakers to build platforms that can evolve over time, rather than redesigning from scratch for each new generation.

The key point is not peak performance alone. It’s the ability to deliver consistent, predictable behavior across a wide range of use cases and over long operational lifetimes.

Supporting diverse OEM strategies

The transition to software-defined vehicles is not uniform across the industry.

Some automakers are moving toward fully centralized architectures, while others are adopting hybrid or zonal approaches. Different strategies reflect different priorities, including cost structure, time-to-market, and control over software ecosystems.

This diversity requires flexibility. Suppliers must support multiple architectural paths and allow automakers to make trade-offs that fit their specific goals. An open, scalable approach becomes increasingly important as vehicles evolve from isolated products to connected, long-lifecycle platforms.

AI is accelerating the need for change

Artificial intelligence is amplifying these challenges.

Early automotive AI focused on discrete functions such as perception. Today, vehicles must handle multiple AI-driven workloads simultaneously, from sensor fusion to planning to in-cabin interactions. These systems must operate in real time while meeting strict safety requirements.

This shifts the focus away from simplified performance metrics toward broader system considerations. Latency, determinism, power efficiency, and data movement all become critical. Supporting AI at scale requires architectures that can orchestrate diverse workloads efficiently while maintaining predictable performance. This reinforces the need for heterogeneous, system-level design.

From products to platforms

In other words, as complexity increases, the industry is moving toward integrated platforms.

Automakers are no longer looking solely for components. They are looking for solutions that combine hardware, software, and development ecosystems in a way that reduces integration risk and accelerates deployment.

This shift reflects a broader change in the semiconductor industry—from delivering individual devices to enabling complete system solutions. And this transition to software-defined vehicles is a long-term shift that will unfold over the next decade.

What is already clear is that success will depend on the ability to design systems that balance long-term reliability with rapid innovation. This requires new thinking—not just in silicon, but in architecture, development processes, and ecosystem collaboration.

The industry is moving beyond optimizing individual parts. It’s designing vehicles as cohesive, adaptable systems. And compute sits at the center of that transformation.

Vivek Bhan is senior VP and GM of high-performance computing at Renesas Electronics.

Related Content

• SDVs: Big Picture and Challenges
• Why the Cloud Is Essential for SDV Development
• Unveiling the Transformation of Software-Defined Vehicles
• Software-defined vehicle (SDV): A technology to watch in 2025
• Taming the Increasing Complexity of the Software-Defined Vehicle

The post Rethinking automotive compute in the software-defined era appeared first on EDN.

Revisiting the past can leave the reader with a range of reactions, including both bemusement at then-embryonic developments and amazement at the accuracy of forecast extrapolations.

After reading the sentence that follows this one, pause for a moment and guess when it was first written, prior to plunging forward in my own prose:

The amount of effort and money put into artificial intelligence has been quite limited, and there are only about a half-dozen major centers of such activity in the world.

Clearly, this quote is a “few” years old! Consider, for example, that last September Gartner forecasted that worldwide spending on AI would hit $1.5 trillion for that (last) year. The above quote is from renowned astrophysicist Carl Sagan’s treatise, “Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science”, first published in 1979, with which I recently reconnected over a long weekend read.

Most people overestimate what they can achieve in one year and underestimate what they can achieve in ten years. (Bill Gates)

Specifically, it came from chapter 20, “In Defense of Robots”, which in its original form was titled “In Praise of Robots” and appeared in the January 1975 edition of Natural History magazine. Unsurprisingly, given that the source material is more than a half-century old at this point, some of it is charmingly dated. Consider, for example, this chapter excerpt:

There will be strong pressures for continued miniaturization of intelligent machines. It is clear that remarkable miniaturization has already occurred. Vacuum tubes have been replaced by transistors, wired circuits by printed circuit boards, and entire computer systems by silicon chip microcircuitry. Today, a circuit that used to occupy much of a 1930 radio set can be printed on the tip of a pin.

Or, speaking of the current state of intelligent machines, this passage:

The ten best chess players in the world still have nothing to fear from any present computer, but the situation is changing. Recently, a computer for the first time did well enough to enter the Minnesota State Chess Open. This may be the first time that a non-human has entered a major sporting event on the planet Earth…The computer did not win the chess open, but this is the first time one has done well enough to enter such a competition. Chess playing computers are improving extremely rapidly.

And then there’s this, focusing on Sagan’s primary area of expertise, space:

In the exploration of Mars, unmanned vehicles have already soft-landed, and only a little further in the future they will roam about the surface of the Red Planet as some now do on the Moon.

What would Sagan have thought about the fact that, as I’m writing these words, NASA just announced that its Perseverance rover has traveled the distance of a marathon on Mars, notably much of it autonomously? He wouldn’t, I’d argue, be at all surprised. And that, dear readers, is at the core of why I’m focusing on his book, and this chapter in particular, today. To wit, immediately after the prior quote, he elaborated on his prognostication “tease”, writing:

The Viking landers deposited on Mars in summer of 1976 have a very interesting array of sensors and scientific instruments, which are the extension of human senses to an alien environment. The obvious post-Viking device for Martian exploration, one which takes advantage of the Viking technology, is a Viking rover in which the equivalent of an entire Viking spacecraft, but with considerably improved science, is put on wheels or tractor treads and permitted to rove slowly over the Martian landscape.

But now we have a new problem, one that is never encountered in machine operation on the Earth’s surface.  Although Mars is the second closest planet, it is so far from the Earth that light travel becomes significant. At a typical relative position of Mars and the Earth, the planet is 20 light minutes away. Thus, if the spacecraft were confronted with a steep incline, it might send a message of inquiry back to Earth. Forty minutes later, the response would arrive saying something like, “For heaven’s sake, stand dead still!” But by then, of course, an unsophisticated machine would have tumbled into a gully.

Consequently, any Martian rover requires slope and roughness sensors. Fortunately, these are readily available and are even seen in some children’s toys. When confronted with a precipitous slope or large boulder, the spacecraft would either stop until receiving instructions from the Earth in response to its query and televised picture of the terrain, or back off and start in another and safer direction. Much more elaborate contingency decision networks can be built into the onboard computers of spacecraft of the 1980s.

Any sufficiently advanced technology no longer distinguishes itself from pure magic. (Arthur C. Clarke)

The fundamental point of In Defense of Robots, at least per my interpretation of it, is to provide Sagan with a platform to answer a question he posited at the beginning:

The powerful abilities of computing machines to do arithmetic hundreds of millions of times faster than unaided human beings are legendary. But what about really difficult matters? Can machines in any sense think through a new problem? Can they make discussions of the branch-contingency-tree variety with which we think of as characteristically human?

Sagan’s answer to that question was an unqualified “yes”, and here’s what he thought it would look like, again specific to astrophysics and related topics:

In the development of such machines we find a kind of convergent evolution. Viking is, in a curious sense, like some great outsized clumsily constructed insect. It is not yet ambulatory and is certainly incapable of self-reproduction, but it has an exoskeleton, it has a wide range of insect-like sensory organs, and it is about as intelligent as a dragonfly.

But Viking has some advantages that insects do not. It can, on occasion, by inquiring of its controllers on Earth, assume the intelligence of a human being. The controllers are able to reprogram the Viking computer on the basis of the decisions they make.

As the field of machine intelligence advances, and as increasingly distant objects in the solar system become accessible to exploration, we will see the development of increasingly sophisticated onboard computers, slowly climbing the phylogenetic tree from insect intelligence to crocodile intelligence to squirrel intelligence and, in the not very remote future, I think, to dog intelligence.

That said, Sagan was also keen to expand far beyond astrophysics with his forecasts, even to the realm of psychoanalysis. Consider chatbots’ increasingly common use as virtual therapists, albeit with diverse user experiences and outcomes, as you read the following excerpt:

In a time when more and more people in our society seem to be in need of psychiatric counseling, and when timesharing of computers is widespread, I can even imagine the development of a network of computer psychotherapeutic terminals something like arrays of large telephone booths in which for a few dollars a session we are able to talk to an attentive tested and largely non-directive psychotherapist. Ensuring the confidentiality of the psychiatric dialogue is one of the several important steps still to be worked out.

Or consider something a bit “closer to home” for the broad engineering community, that of humanoid and other robotic systems for industrial and other related applications:

If intelligent machines for terrestrial mining and space exploratory applications are pursued, the time cannot be far off when household and other domestic robots will become commercially feasible…There are many common tasks, ranging from bartending to floor washing, that involve a very limited array of intellectual capabilities, albeit substantial stamina and patience.

All-purpose ambulatory household robots, which perform domestic functions as well as a proper 19th century butler, are probably many decades off, but more specialized machines, each adapted to specific household functions, are probably already on the horizon. It is possible to imagine many other civic tasks and essential functions of everyday life carried out by intelligent machines.

Much in life is simply a matter of perspective. It’s not inherently good or bad, a success or failure; it’s how we choose to look at things that makes the difference. (David Niven)

But I can’t help but wonder: was Sagan too sanguine about the societal upheaval caused by AI-powered robotic (and broader AI) supplant?

For the development of domestic and civic robots to be a general civic good, the effect of re-employment of those human beings displaced by the robots must be of course arranged. But over a human generation, that should not be too difficult, particularly if there are enlightened educational reforms. Human beings enjoy learning.

If anything, he seemed more concerned that human beings’ overreaction (at least in his eyes) to such displacement might unnecessarily delay or even preclude this transition and broader transformation, to the broader detriment of our species (thereby at least in part explaining, I suspect, the shift from robot “praise” to “defense” from the 1975 article to 1979 book chapter):

We appear to be on the verge of developing a wide variety of intelligent machines capable of performing tasks too dangerous, too expensive, too onerous, or too boring for human beings. The development of such machines is, in my mind, one of the few legitimate spin-offs of the space program. The efficient exploitation of energy and agriculture, upon which our survival as a species depends, may even be contingent on the development of such machines.

The main obstacle seems to be a very human problem, the quiet feeling that comes stealthily and unbidden, and argues that there is something threatening or inhuman about machines performing tasks as well or better than human beings, or a sense of loathing for creatures made of silicon and germanium rather than proteins and nucleic acids. But in many respects, our survival as a species depends on our transcending such primitive chauvinisms.

In part, our adjustment to intelligent machines is a matter of acclimatization. There are already cardiac pacemakers that can sense the beat of a human heart. Only when there is the slightest hint of fibrillation does the pacemaker stimulate the heart. This is a mild but very useful sort of machine intelligence. I cannot imagine the wearer of this device resenting its intelligence [EDITOR NOTE: as regular readers will likely already understand, I particularly resonated with this point].

I think in a relatively short period of time there will be a very similar sort of acceptance for much more intelligent and sophisticated machines. There is nothing inhuman about an intelligent machine. It is indeed an expression of those superb intellectual qualities that only human beings, of all creatures on this planet, now possess.

Whether or not you resonate with Sagan’s perspectives in the excerpts I’ve shared, I suspect you’ll (near-)universally agree with my admiration for the accuracy of his prophecies, along with the rare combination of intelligence and open-mindedness (with at least one notable exception) that were at their foundation. Regardless, I encourage you to pick up a copy of Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science and give it a read for yourself.

It’s only $6.99 on Kindle as I write this (and as I read it), and I also commonly come across both hardcover and paperback copies of it at used bookstores. There’s always also your public library, of course. And worst case, I stumbled across a YouTube video of someone reading the (bulk of the) text of the In Praise of Robots chapter:

Fair warning: there’s at least one several-paragraph section missing (I suspect due to a multi-“take” merging edit error, not intentionally), ironically the one from which the quote that opened this writeup came. And the regularly changing “psychedelic” special effects (which I suspect were an attempt, apparently successfully, to circumvent copyright infringement algorithms) compel me to encourage you to focus solely on the audio. But, hey…free!

Regardless of how you end up consuming Broca’s Brain, I hope you find it a fruitful experience, versus a waste of time. Be sure to come back here afterward and share your thoughts in the comments, ok? Thanks!

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

Related Content

• 2025: A year in which chaos seemingly thrived
• How emerging robotics standards will shape next-gen automation
• Robots: Why AI alone will not deliver the next leap in automation
• From edge AI to physical AI in smart factories: A shift in how machines perceive and act
• Precision lasers boost safety and efficiency in smart factories

The post Carl Sagan’s prescient thoughts on AI and robots appeared first on EDN.