pwr-electronics

It's still better than value-based pricing where you have to call for a quote and they try to figure out the maximum you'll pay.

> many toolboxes cost more than

They're all priced the same for home use.

https://www.mathworks.com/store/link/products/home/ML

IMO modern MATLAB with the right toolboxes is much more capable than Mathematica. Pricing is similar.

I don't know if they necessarily should. It's easy enough to post your own supporting materials online. But it doesn't fit the publisher's mission of keeping a timeless paper trail of ideas.

I see how you read that completely differently than how I meant it. I apologize, and thank you for pointing that out.

I meant to convey that creating a free software tool specifically to support a hardware catalog has precedent, makes business sense, and is useful to customers. Not everything has to conform to the FOSS die-hard ethos to upstream everything.

It's similar to their LTspice strategy. It's free, but it's only for ADI devices. They want you to buy their stuff.

That won't happen. They've specifically said that they maintain it because it helps them sell more product. They also encrypt their models. If they open source it, they lose both encryption and exclusivity.

Yes

Physically, no. I wouldn't fit.

I can't think of a manufacturer off-hand where even a majority of their 600V+ GaN power devices have a static on-resistance of at least 100 mΩ. Infineon, GaN Systems, Transphorm, Nexperia, and TI are all majority less.

I can't find it now, but I remember watching a YouTube video about how the military aspect of castles was more about projecting power over the local population to prevent and put down rebellion. This article talks about how it was also both a home security system and a status symbol. You technically had to be licensed to fortify your property.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_to_crenellate

There are still two years' worth of research that definitively answers some important questions, which covers the scope of the previous comments, as written.

> Where is the definitive research on aerosols?

https://sites.google.com/vt.edu/air/publications

This example was pretty easy to find.

You can't make your coworkers do anything. But if you're the boss, you can create whatever type of meeting culture you want. Some companies do read-aheads very well, which I really like.

The point isn't to come completely informed. Just enough to prepare some thoughts and questions.

The easy fix to this is sharing presentation files before the meeting so everyone can follow along however they want. Meetings should mostly be to discuss the information that you already have, not to be surprised with brand new information.

HW is something you can do to one piece of wood, while CLT is something you can do to combine multiple pieces of wood. So you could have a HW CLT, for example.

I'm curious what sort of market research lead to this. If Mechanical engineers are truly the target audience, I would strongly suggest that you consult with one. We already have all these things, with more features, more integrations with other tools, and more flexibility.

> the articulated joint that was present in LifeTrac I - to allow long-life on the shafts - which experience much less wear compared to skid steering

Their competence certainly has dwindled. A growing proportion of their budget is pork. Entire programs are just jobs programs. Those are very undesirable jobs for good engineers.

Constellation was an earnest attempt that strangled itself with process and procedure. SLS is just a battleground for politicians and contractors trying to keep the money flowing in their own directions.

The NASA that people usually think about is found in the smaller projects, where they can go relatively unnoticed by those who would ruin them. But even then, there's probably too much risk aversion. The very idea of that kind of defeats the purpose of NASA, in my opinion.

Really neat idea. It hurts readability to distinguish logic gates with text instead of their traditional symbols. And it's not clear to me if the trace animations add information, the way that they do in the Falstad simulator, or if they're just aesthetic.

But for an early access game, I think it looks great and the idea is solid. I don't know of another game based on the computer hardware-software interface, so it seems to be filling a gap too.

I think it's because there isn't a need for a catch-all word. If it's a plot/chart style of nomogram, for example, we just call it a plot or a chart. I never need to convey the general idea of graphical computation. I do think it's related to the prevalence of computers.

If you like nomograms, you might also like the Nomographer YouTube channel.

https://youtube.com/channel/UCOLYtsL4ge6QfaAvBDeG1IA

The time scales are the same. Top wave is voltage. Bottom wave is power. Power is twice the frequency of voltage.

I didn't say that. If you buy less of something, it'll cost more per unit. Manufacturing line utilization and re-tooling are also important. Someone has to figure out how to change everything cost-effectively.

Changing the amount of something has big effects on supply chain, logistics, and costs. Mass production is all about volume and lead time.

How would that shorten the transition?

It's too late to guarantee the change for designs they've already started, and cars can take about 8 years to go from inception to release.

Ok, now I see where the confusion is coming from. Fortran is used pretty much exclusively for numerical software. A lot of numerical software has very simple control flow using very few and very simple types. Numbers haven't changed much since they were invented. Fortran is used very differently than you're imagining.

I just meant to say that numerical code is not actually write-only.

Fortran is like a DSL. You just write the numerical solver part with it. Everything else is just regular code.

Just like anything else, the decision comes down to whether the ecosystem has the right tools for the job. It's a deliberate decision. It's not like people are relegated to it because they don't know anything else.

I think there's a common misconception that numerical codes should be accessible without documentation, and without a background in the subject.

https://github.com/nasa/NASTRAN-95

Take NASTRAN-95, for example. It has good documentation in the form of manuals, books, and papers. If you have the mechanical background, you should be able to understand the docs explaining the implementation approach, and then you should be able to understand the code. It doesn't matter that there are no comments anywhere. Aside from some cosmetic differences, it looks pretty much like what you'd write today with MATLAB. It's perfectly readable and accessible by the target audience.