Industrial Control DesignLine Blog | Blog for Industrial Control/Automation Engineers and Engineering Managers

June 29, 2009
Non-traditional environmental test methodologies for electronics
By Steve Bitton

We know that electronics have many different test methodologies and standards when it comes to defining reliability. From my experience in semiconductor reliability test I know of many JEDEC standards including HAST (highly accelerated stress test), HTOL (high temperature operating life), LTOL (low temperature operating life, Autoclave, among other,--but have you heard of the "tiger test"? Perhaps the "elephant stomp test". Brian Caufield of Forbes.com puts the Panasonic Toughbook rugged laptop through a few "unconventional" electronics reliability tests. Check out the article here, and be sure to watch the video if you get the chance. I must admit, I am impressed. But I doubt that contract manufacturers will be getting their own tiger's in order to conduct environmental hazard testing!

For more on creative Toughbook testing, check out youtube videos such as this one.

Comment on this blog entry

June 26, 2009
Letter to the editor: 8-bit horsepower
By Chuck Mauro

Editor's note - Chuck is responding to a question I posed about 8-bit MCUs in a recent edition of the Focus on MCU newsletter: "What are your thoughts on 8-bit versus 16-bit versus 32-bit MCUs?"

Why, yes, 8 bits of embedded micro can be quite a bit of horsepower, indeed.

I've been either in or attached to this business (microprocessors, micro-controllers) since almost literally after it's inception at Intel with the 4004. My first computer system design utilized an 8008 back in the early to mid 70's. I soon graduated into the 6502 family and dwelled there for a number of years developing many peripheral products utilizing the 6500 architecture. I went on to deploy Z80's, and the 8088. I then dove into the single-chip micro business, incorporating my first PIC - waaaaay back in the General Instrument days, when the part was still P-Mos based! I used it for my design of Mouse Systems optical mouse in the early-mid 80's, and boy did we sell a LOT of those (at least a couple million even back then).

I eventually found myself developing hardware for and programming the IBM PC, which frankly still felt like an 8-bitter to me with nicely extended register sizes.

I forayed into the 16 bit world very briefly, developing code for an embedded HC16 in a KLA-Tencor image computer system, but always found it awkward to use, since I kept trying to look at it as an 8 bit machine (which was all I really needed - I didn't pick the processor, being just the contract firmware engineer on the project).

I KNOW 32 bit machines like the back of my hand, after working many years at Intel, validating the heck out of all its 32 bit CPU architectures during my tenure there. Here's how I feel about the IA32 engine: Turning back toward the days of the Apple ][, we see countless millions of units sold, a highly successful string of machines built on 8 bits of architecture with a measly 1-2 MHz of horsepower. There was excellent software available in the form of VisiCalc, highly entertaining games, various word-processors, database engines, etc. Throw in the Z80 co-processor cards, and you had Multiplan, SuperCalc, Word Star, d-Base 2, Word, and a host of other highly impressive and very usable business-class products on these 8-bit platforms. With the exception of hardware accelerators, such as multiply and divide and address register extensions, what else was useful about 16 and now 32 bit processors for the mainstream markets when it came to single-user apps? Sure, today we have amazing 3D-like gaming, and gigabyte addressing, and multiple apps running simultaneously. But is this progress, or is this more of the same tied up with a prettier bow?

But now I find myself once again independent and developing a product around an 8-bit micro-controller solution. Only this time it's Atmel based, and boy am I impressed. We clock away at 20 MHz, and are able to read an external serial FLASH device at 10 Mbit/sec to feed a real-time interpretive engine. Now I'm clocking 20 times as fast as I used to due back in my Apple days, and with a RISC architecture that delivers nearly 1 MIPS/MHZ, taking only a couple of mA's to do it. Because of the simple 16 bit register movement extension, any word-based data is nicely and easily accessed and manipulated when occasionally required. There are lots of real-world, embedded solutions that barely have the need of data types beyond bit and byte. With the best targeted C compilers churning out such efficient code these days, it really doesn't matter that we're only using 8 bits, because we're using 8 bits efficiently and cleanly now, and 16 and 32 bit machines would cost us more on several levels and deliver no real added benefit.

Frankly, many of us do just fine with 8 bits, and there really isn't any reason to migrate upward in device architecture. I think one reason behind the lagging of 16 bit sales is 8 bitters can clock fast enough and have enough 16 bit extension that a true 16 bit machine isn't needed. And 32 bits? Why? All of my data structures are bit, byte and occasionally word-oriented. My Atmel architecture screams, but you can find 8-bitters in the 100-200 MHz range if you need them. That's plenty of horsepower for the real-world in all but the most insanely critical embedded solutions. Specialty applications need the bit-width and the high speed, sure, so let them have it.

And the cost is so dang low! I can buy 8 bit solutions in SOT-23 style packaging in volume for quarters and dimes! What do you think has a higher manufacturing volume: the laser printer or the toothbrush? With 8 bitters costing so little, we can now have the $5 smart electric toothbrush if we want. I seriously doubt that 32 bit machines will ever become cheap enough to displace the venerable 8 bit architecture. It's a matter of scale and application. The 8 bit machine is so well suited for the majority of applications, and can be made so small, and so cheap, that we're hitting up against the real-world limits of cost based on packaging alone.

What's the point of applying 32 bits where 8 more than suffices? It's doubtful a 32 bit machine could ever be cost-competitive over an 8 bit. It's not just a volume issue - as we've mentioned. It's total packaged cost. And I just don't see 32 bit engines in transistor-sized SMT packages. There are so many 8 bit package options and peripheral mixes and memory sizes and clock rates available from just a handful of manufactures, it's nothing short of bewildering. Suffice it to say that just about every imaginable need is well covered these days.

It may make sense to consolidate multiple 8 bit machines into a single 32 bit solution when it comes to the automotive market. Perhaps it's a cost consolidation that is overdue. But there will still be 8 bit micros in those same autos, I'm sure. The siren song of more horsepower in bit width has lured the embedded engineer for decades, yet the 8 bit micro still reigns supreme.

I've heard the predictions by industry pundits and marketing departments alike for probably 30 or more years now claiming the death of the venerable 8 bit machine. Now the newest data from at least one source says 2010 is the cross-over year. Yeah, sure. Talk to me next year.

I'll believe it when I see it..

Chuck Mauro
Co-Owner
Pico Machines, LLC
4779 NW 138th Pl
Portland, OR 97229-2460
------------------------------------
503-629-8084
cmaurojr@yahoo.com

Editor's note part 2: To subscribe to the Focus on MCU newsletter, check MCU in the DesignLine newsletter section of your TechOnline registration information. See image below.

Comment on this blog entry

June 23, 2009
More processor talk
By Steve Bitton

There have been some intersting comments on my blog post about the embedded processor wars. And while wearing one of my other hats as the editor of the Focus on MCUs newsletter, I received some interesting feedback on the question of the whether people are still using 8-bit MCUs. The question of which processor to use for an embedded project is still a very relevant one.

One resource that the embedded systems engineer can use to see the trends in the industry is the 2009 Embedded Market Study. Rich Nass, David Blaza, and Mike Barr go through some of the key findings in this particular webinar. Among some of the stats analyzed is choice of processor which really starts around the 20 minute mark of this 40 minute webinar. 32-bit, 16-bit, 8-bit, DSP, FPGAs, and the ecosystems are all discussed.

Many other questions are looked at such as choice of operating systems, outsourcing, and structure of engineering teams. I encourage you to spend the time to view this study --it contains a good snapshot of what your fellow embedded systems engineers are working on.
Comment on this blog entry

June 16, 2009
All in one place
By Steve Bitton

Just a quick blog entry to have all the links to the popular Motor Fundamentals articles from Microchip in one place. I find it's handy to have one URL for when you need to reference these papers.

Keep coming back to this site to see new and informative articles on motor control amongst other topics of concern to industrial control design engineers.
Comment on this blog entry