Electronic Engineering Crossword (Issue 268)

The answers to Circuit Cellar’s November electronics engineering crossword puzzle are now available.


2.     FLOWCODE—Columnist Jeff Bachiochi taught readers how to use this graphical programming language in his recent article about flowcharting (Circuit Cellar 266, 2012)

7.     LAPLACE—This type of transform is similar to Fourier, but expresses functions into moments as opposed of vibration

11.   RACEWAY—Channel to hold wires, cables, etc.

12.   SENSORSCircuit Cellar’s 250th issue (2011) focused on Measurement and this other topic

13.   LANDS—A metallic contact area

14.   BITTI—Interviewee (Circuit Cellar 253, 2011) who designed the “Witness Camera,” a self-recording surveillance camera

17.   DARLINGTON—This type of pair can be produced using individual transistors or purchased as a single device, as in a 2N6301

18.   WAFER—A slice of semiconductor material upon which monolithic ICs are produced

19.   DIELECTRICCORE—The insulating material that makes up the center of the cable through which the conductors are run [two words]

20.   THERMOPLASTIC—A synthetic, flexible mixture of rosins used as an insulting material


1.     ROUNDKEYS—In his article “Hardware-Accelerated Encryption” (Circuit Cellar 266, 2012) Patrick Schaumont said AES encryption’s real secrecy comes from the periodic additions of these

3.     OILCAN—A type of planar tube, similar to the lighthouse tube, which has cooling fins

4.     VECTORGRAPHICS—In the 1970s, Circuit Cellar founder Steve Ciarcia wrote his first article for BYTE about this topic

5.     VOLTAGECONTROLLED—An oscillator controlled by voltage input; there are usually two types: harmonic and relaxation [two words]

6.     TEMPEST—Describes compromising emanations

8.     ACQUISITIONTIME—In a communications system, the time interval required to attain synchronism [two words]

9.     INTEL—Company credited with making the first single-chip microprocessor

10.   HANDSHAKING—How one device communicates with one or more other devices, at a predetermined speed

15.   VARACTOR—Used as a capacitor to control voltage

16.   SALLENKEY—Active filer, two-pole [two words]


CC269: Break Through Designer’s Block

Are you experiencing designer’s block? Having a hard time starting a new project? You aren’t alone. After more than 11 months of designing and programming (which invariably involved numerous successes and failures), many engineers are simply spent. But don’t worry. Just like every other year, new projects are just around the corner. Sooner or later you’ll regain your energy and find yourself back in action. Plus, we’re here to give you a boost. The December issue (Circuit Cellar 269) is packed with projects that are sure to inspire your next flurry of innovation.

Turn to page 16 to learn how Dan Karmann built the “EBikeMeter” Atmel ATmega328-P-based bicycle computer. He details the hardware and firmware, as well as the assembly process. The monitoring/logging system can acquire and display data such as Speed/Distance, Power, and Recent Log Files.

The Atmel ATmega328-P-based “EBikeMeter” is mounted on the bike’s handlebar.

Another  interesting project is Joe Pfeiffer’s bell ringer system (p. 26). Although the design is intended for generating sound effects in a theater, you can build a similar system for any number of other uses.

You probably don’t have to be coerced into getting excited about a home control project. Most engineers love them. Check out Scott Weber’s garage door control system (p. 34), which features a MikroElektronika RFid Reader. He built it around a Microchip Technology PIC18F2221.

The reader is connected to a breadboard that reads the data and clock signals. It’s built with two chips—the Microchip 28-pin PIC and the eight-pin DS1487 driver shown above it—to connect it to the network for testing. (Source: S. Weber, CC269)

Once considered a hobby part, Arduino is now implemented in countless innovative ways by professional engineers like Ed Nisley. Read Ed’s article before you start your next Arduino-related project (p. 44). He covers the essential, but often overlooked, topic of the Arduino’s built-in power supply.

A heatsink epoxied atop the linear regulator on this Arduino MEGA board helped reduce the operating temperature to a comfortable level. This is certainly not recommended engineering practice, but it’s an acceptable hack. (Source: E. Nisley, CC269)

Need to extract a signal in a noisy environment? Consider a lock-in amplifier. On page 50, Robert Lacoste describes synchronous detection, which is a useful way to extract a signal.

This month, Bob Japenga continues his series, “Concurrency in Embedded Systems” (p. 58). He covers “the mechanisms to create concurrently in your software through processes and threads.”

On page 64, George Novacek presents the second article in his series, “Product Reliability.” He explains the importance of failure rate data and how to use the information.

Jeff Bachiochi wraps up the issue with a article about using heat to power up electronic devices (p. 68). Fire and a Peltier device can save the day when you need to charge a cell phone!

Set aside time to carefully study the prize-winning projects from the Reneas RL78 Green Energy Challenge (p. 30). Among the noteworthy designs are an electrostatic cleaning robot and a solar energy-harvesting system.

Lastly, I want to take the opportunity to thank Steve Ciarcia for bringing the electrical engineering community 25 years of innovative projects, essential content, and industry insight. Since 1988, he’s devoted himself to the pursuit of EE innovation and publishing excellence, and we’re all better off for it. I encourage you to read Steve’s final “Priority Interrupt” editorial on page 80. I’m sure you’ll agree that there’s no better way to begin the next 25 years of innovation than by taking a moment to understand and celebrate our past. Thanks, Steve.

Microcontroller-Based Markov Music Box

Check out the spectrogram for two FM notes produced by FM modulation. Red indicates higher energy at a given time and frequency.

Cornell University senior lecturer Bruce Land had two reasons for developing an Atmel AVR micrcontroller-based music box. One, he wanted to present synthesis/sequencing algorithms to his students. And two, he wanted the challenge of creating an interactive music box. Interactive audio is becoming an increasingly popular topic among engineers and designers, as we recently reported.

Land writes:

Traditional music boxes play one or two tunes very well, but are not very interactive. Put differently, they have a high quality of synthesis, but a fixed-pattern note sequencer and fixed tonal quality. I wanted to build a device which would play an interesting music-like note sequence, which constantly changed and evolved, with settable timbre, tempo, and beat… To synthesize nice sounding musical notes you need to control spectral content of the note, the rise time (attack), fall time (decay), and the change in spectral content during attack and decay.  Also it is nice to have at least two independent musical voices. And all of this has to be done using the modest arithmetic capability of an 8-bit microcontroller.

Land’s students subsequently used the music box for other projects, such as an auto-composing piano, as shown in the following video.

In early 2013 Circuit Cellar will run Land’s in-depth article on the Markov music box project. Stay tuned for more information.

Principles of Embedded System Design (CC 25th Anniversary Preview)

You have an idea an idea for an innovative microcontroller-based design? Once you start start soldering and wiring, you might want to keep an eye on Bob Japenga’s checklist of essential embedded system design principle. His complete list will appear in Circuit Cellar‘s 25th Anniversary issue, which will be available in early 2013. But since many of you will be attempting to complete projects before January 1, we’re giving you a sneak peek.

Japenga writes:

We all know that old adage: “If you don’t have time to do it right the first time, where do you find the time to do it right the second?” But this is the nature of developing robust embedded systems. There are literally thousands of little decisions that we make even in the simplest of projects. How can we minimize repeating mistakes?

So my goal in this article is twofold: to celebrate with Circuit Cellar 25 years of great service to us engineers and to hammer home some of those principles that we so often forget. I will divide the essentials into four categories: general essentials, essentials that exist because things (i.e., us and our designs) fail, essentials about testing, and essentials about memory use.

General Essentials

KISS & No Simpler“Keep it simple stupid (KISS).” How often do I need to hear this? I like the saying about KISS that’s often attributed to Albert Einstein but was actually Roger Session’s paraphrase: “Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.” I am counting these as our first and second essentials.  Keep it simple is number one and no simpler is the second. I find this an immense challenge. When we are faced with schedule deadlines and tight budgets, it is costly to make a design simple. Some people have a gift at taking a problem and abstracting an elegant and simple solution. I remember giving a design specification to one of my employees a number of years ago when I worked for an aerospace company. After several days he came back with over 20 pages of algorithms and charts defining how the specification should be met in software. I wasn’t smart enough to know why it was too complex, but my gut feeling was: “This is too complex. Make it simpler.” Later, I turned it over to another young man who returned with an elegant two-page algorithm that worked perfectly.

How do we do that? “As simple as possible” can get us in trouble if we make it too simple. For example, just recently we were designing a multi-drop serial interface to be incorporated into a medical device. A strong case could be made for the simplicity of using a single-ended interface. But experience tells us that a differential interface will be more robust in the face of defibrillators and all the various noisy electronic instruments it will to play with. Which meets the KISS principle? The same tough decision comes when you’re trying to decide whether to go with a two-wire or a four-wire interface. Two wires has less cabling, but it’s more complex in the interface and forces single-duplex operation. Again, which meets the principle?

Sometimes the trade-off can come down to what you already have in the house. If you have well-debugged libraries for handling the two-wire 485 protocols, the reduced number of wires reduces the overall system complexity even though the software will in fact be more complex.

Sometimes when dealing with algorithm development, the KISS principle can also present ambiguous alternatives. At times, a straightforward linear programming approach can be many times more lines of code and more complex than an elegant algorithm. But the elegant algorithm may be obscure, difficult to maintain, or take too long to come up with. Therein lies the challenge to Keep It Simple Stupid but No Simpler.

Define the Problem/Create Clear SpecsHaving a clear set of specs is essential to every part of a design. We all know this and we always belly ache about how we don’t have perfect specifications. But get with it. You won’t always have perfect specs from your customer. But it is essential that you make them as good as possible. And in writing. If your customer is willing, keep pushing back and keep writing it down and refining it as you go.

I’ve found that essential for every phase of a project. Whether it is hardware or software, writing out the spec (on the schematic or in the code) is a wonderful act of discipline. Write out the spec for the module. Write out the spec for the algorithm. Write out the spec for the circuit. Writing it out forces you to think it through. End the belly-aching about the lack of good specs. Start creating them.

Don’t Skimp on the ToolsTools are our life blood. If you are a manager and your designers don’t have the best tools, you are wasting your money on their salaries. That said, we are not talking about buying tools you don’t use, tools that don’t pay for themselves, or tools that you can rent more cost effectively. Last week we were discussing a problem where one of our cell modem designs exceeded the limit for the second harmonic in spurious emissions. In talking over the problem with the test lab, I discovered that they had a tool that they brought inside the anechoic chamber that could tell the cell modem to transmit on such and such a frequency at maximum power. Naively, I asked, “Shouldn’t we have such a tool?” Someone responded: “Yes, but they cost almost a million dollars.” Oh. But we found we could rent one for $1,000 a day. So, I am not talking about being unwise with our money.

Many years ago while at the aerospace company, I was recommending an HP64000 system that appeared to be a very powerful tool for our software development team. I wrote up the proposal and presented it to the vice president of engineering. His question has haunted me ever since. “Would you buy it if it were your money?” I said then, and continue to say now, “Get the best tools that will allow you to do the job as quickly as possible. If a 200-man-hour job can be done for 100 hours with a $10,000 instrument, is it worth it. Absolutely.”

Read the DocumentationLast year we had a problem that showed up only after we started making the product in 1,000-piece runs. The problem was that some builds of the system took a very long time to power up. We had built about 10 prototypes, tested the design over thousands of power ups, and it tested just fine (thanks to POC-IT). Then the 1,000-piece run uncovered about a half-dozen units that had variable power-up times—ranging from a few seconds to more than an hour! Replacing the watchdog chip that controlled the RESET line to an ARM9 processor fixed the problem. But why did these half dozen fail? Many hours into the analysis we discovered that the RESET line out of the watchdog chip on the failed units would pulse but stay low for long periods of time. A shot of cold air instantly caused the chip to release the RESET. Was it a faulty chip lot? Nope. Upon a closer read of the documentation, we found that you cannot have a pull-up resister on the RESET line. For years we always had pull-ups on RESET lines. We’d missed that in the documentation.

Like it or not, we have to pour over the documentation of the chips and software library calls we use. We have to digest the content carefully. We cannot rely on what is intuitive.

Finally, and this is much more necessary than in years past, we have to pour over the errata sheets. And we need to do it before we commit the design. A number of years ago, a customer designed a major new product line around an Atmel ARM9. This ARM9 had the capability of directly addressing NOR memory up to 128 MB.  Except for the fact that the errata said that due to a bug it could only address 16 MB.  Ouch! Later we had problems with the I2C bus in the same chip. At times, the bus would lock up and nothing except a power cycle would unlock it. Enter the errata. Under some unmentioned conditions the I2C state machine can lock up. Ouch! In this case, we were able to use a bit-bang algorithm rather than the built-in I2C—but obviously at the cost of money, scheduling, and real time.

If You Can’t Explain it to Mom, It Ain’t ClearThat’s another way to say: “Assume no one reads the user manual.” I recently read a blog post about the City of Boston’s electronic parking meters (http://usabilitylessons.wordpress.com/category/general/). Truly, one wonders who reviewed that user interface. If you want to make robust embedded systems with a user interface, they need to have intuitive interfaces, or you may be surprised at what the user comes up with. This takes time and effort, but it’s well worth it. Try it out on the uninitiated. Engineers are the worst kind of people for testing user interfaces. Try it on kids. My business partner’s one-year-old son found the first bug in our first product.

Be sure to get your hands on the upcoming anniversary issue to learn about the reset of the principles. He covers “Things Fail Essentials,” “Testing Essentials,” “Memory Management Essentials,” and more. Consider using it to create your own design principles checklist that you can keep at your workbench.

Embedded Security Tips (CC 25th Anniversary Preview)

Every few days we you a sneak peek at some of the exciting content that will run in Circuit Cellar‘s Anniversary issue, which is scheduled to be available in early 2013. You’ve read about Ed Nisley’s essay on his most memorable designs—from a hand-held scanner project to an Arduino-based NiMH cell tester—and Robert Lacoste’s tips for preventing embedded design errors. Now it’s time for another preview.

Many engineers know they are building electronic systems for use in dangerous times. They must plan for both hardware and software attacks, which makes embedded security a hot topic for 2013.  In an essay on embedded security risks, Virginia Tech professor Patrick Schaumont looks at the current state of affairs through several examples. His tips and suggestions will help you evaluate the security needs of your next embedded design.

Schaumont writes:

As design engineers, we should understand what can and what cannot be done. If we understand the risks, we can create designs that give the best possible protection at a given level of complexity. Think about the following four observations before you start designing an embedded security implementation.

First, you have to understand the threats that you are facing. If you don’t have a threat model, it makes no sense to design a protection—there’s no threat! A threat model for an embedded system will specify what can attacker can and cannot do. Can she probe components? Control the power supply? Control the inputs of the design? The more precisely you specify the threats, the more robust your defenses will be. Realize that perfect security does not exist, so it doesn’t make sense to try to achieve it. Instead, focus on the threats you are willing to deal with.

Second, make a distinction between what you trust and what you cannot trust. In terms of building protections, you only need to worry about what you don’t trust. The boundary between what you trust and what you don’t trust is suitably called the trust boundary. While trust boundaries where originally logical boundaries in software systems, they also have a physical meaning in embedded context. For example, let’s say that you define the trust boundary to be at the chip-package level of a microcontroller. This implies that you’re assuming an attacker will get as close to the chip as the package pins, but not closer. With such a trust boundary, your defenses should focus on off-chip communication. If there’s nothing or no one to trust, then you’re in trouble. It’s not possible to build a secure solution without trust.

Third, security has a cost. You cannot get it for free. Security has a cost in resources and energy. In a resource-limited embedded system, this means that security will always be in competition with other system features in terms of resources. And because security is typically designed to prevent bad things from happening rather than to enable good things, it may be a difficult trade-off. In feature-rich consumer devices, security may not be a feature for which a customer is willing to pay extra.

The fourth observation, and maybe the most important one, is to realize is that you’re not alone. There are many things to learn from conferences, books, and magazines. Don’t invent your own security. Adapt standards and proven Circuit Cellar’s Circuit Cellar 25th Anniversary Issue will be available in early 2013. Stay tuned for more updates on the issue’s content.techniques. Learn about the experiences of other designers.

Schaumont then provides lists of helpful embedded security-related resources, such as Flylogic’s Analytics Blog and the Athena website at GMU.

Prevent Embedded Design Errors (CC 25th Anniversary Preview)

Attention, electrical engineers and programmers! Our upcoming 25th Anniversary Issue (available in early 2013) isn’t solely a look back at the history of this publication. Sure, we cover a bit of history. But the issue also features design tips, projects, interviews, and essays on topics ranging from user interface (UI) tips for designers to the future of small RAM devices, FPGAs, and 8-bit chips.

Circuit Cellar’s 25th Anniversary issue … coming in early 2013

Circuit Cellar columnist Robert Lacoste is one of the engineers whose essay will focus on present-day design tips. He explains that electrical engineering projects such as mixed-signal designs can be tedious, tricky, and exhausting. In his essay, Lacoste details 25 errors that once made will surely complicate (at best) or ruin (at worst) an embedded design project. Below are some examples and tips.

Thinking about bringing an electronics design to market? Lacoste highlights a common error many designers make.

Error 3: Not Anticipating Regulatory Constraints

Another common error is forgetting to plan for regulatory requirements from day one. Unless you’re working on a prototype that won’t ever leave your lab, there is a high probability that you will need to comply with some regulations. FCC and CE are the most common, but you’ll also find local regulations as well as product-class requirements for a broad range of products, from toys to safety devices to motor-based machines. (Refer to my article, “CE Marking in a Nutshell,” in Circuit Cellar 257 for more information.)

Let’s say you design a wireless gizmo with the U.S. market and later find that your customers want to use it in Europe. This means you lose years of work, as well as profits, because you overlooked your customers’ needs and the regulations in place in different locals.

When designing a wireless gizmo that will be used outside the U.S., having adequate information from the start will help you make good decisions. An example would be selecting a worldwide-enabled band like the ubiquitous 2.4 GHz. Similarly, don’t forget that EMC/ESD regulations require that nearly all inputs and outputs should be protected against surge transients. If you forget this, your beautiful, expensive prototype may not survive its first day at the test lab.

Watch out for errors

Here’s another common error that could derail a project. Lacoste writes:

Error 10: You Order Only One Set of Parts Before PCB Design

I love this one because I’ve done it plenty of times even though I knew the risk.

Let’s say you design your schematic, route your PCB, manufacture or order the PCB, and then order the parts to populate it. But soon thereafter you discover one of the following situations: You find that some of the required parts aren’t available. (Perhaps no distributor has them. Or maybe they’re available but you must make a minimum order of 10,000 parts and wait six months.) You learn the parts are tagged as obsolete by its manufacturer, which may not be known in advance especially if you are a small customer.

If you are serious about efficiency, you won’t have this problem because you’ll order the required parts for your prototypes in advance. But even then you might have the same issue when you need to order components for the first production batch. This one is tricky to solve, but only two solutions work. Either use only very common parts that are widely available from several sources or early on buy enough parts for a couple of years of production. Unfortunately, the latter is the only reasonable option for certain components like LCDs.

Ok, how about one more? You’ll have to check out the Anniversary Issue for the list of the other 22 errors and tips. Lacoste writes:

Error 12: You Forget About Crosstalk Between Digital and Analog Signals

Full analog designs are rare, so you have probably some noisy digital signals around your sensor input or other low-noise analog lines. Of course, you know that you must separate them as much as possible, but you can be sure that you will forget it more than once.

Let’s consider a real-world example. Some years ago, my company designed a high-tech Hi-Fi audio device. It included an on-board I2C bus linking a remote user interface. Do you know what happened? Of course, we got some audible glitches on the loudspeaker every time there was an I2C transfer. We redesigned the PCB—moving tracks and adding plenty of grounded copper pour and vias between sensitive lines and the problem was resolved. Of course we lost some weeks in between. We knew the risk, but underestimated it because nothing is as sensitive as a pair of ears. Check twice and always put guard-grounded planes between sensitive tracks and noisy ones.

Circuit Cellar’s Circuit Cellar 25th Anniversary Issue will be available in early 2013. Stay tuned for more updates on the issue’s content.





From the IBM PC AT to AVRs & Arduinos (CC 25th Anniversary Preview)

During the last 25 years, hundreds of the world’s most brilliant electrical engineers and embedded developers have published articles in Circuit Cellar magazine. But only a choice few had the skill, focus, creativity, and stamina to consistently publish six or more articles per year. Ed Nisley is a member of that select group. Since Issue 1, Nisley has covered topics ranging from a video hand scanner project to X10 powerline control to Arduino-based designs to crystal characterization.

In the upcoming Circuit Cellar 25th Anniversary Issue—which is slated for publication in early 2013—Nisley describes some of his most memorable projects, such as his hand Scanner design from Issue #1. He writes:

The cable in the upper-left corner went to the serial port of my Genuine IBM PC AT. The hand-wired circuit board in front came from an earlier project: an 8031-based video digitizer that captured single frames and produced, believe it or not, RS-232 serial data. It wasn’t fast, but it worked surprisingly well and, best of all, the board was relatively inexpensive. Having built the board and written the firmware, I modified it to output compressed data from hand images, then wrote a PC program to display the results.

Combining a TV camera, a prototype 8031-based video digitizer, and an IBM PC with custom firmware and software produced a digital hand scanner for Circuit Cellar Issue 1. The aluminum case came from an external 8″ floppy drive!

The robust aluminum case originally housed an external 8″ floppy drive for one of my earlier DIY “home computers” (they sure don’t make ‘em like they used to!) and I assembled the rest of the hardware in my shop. With hardware and software in hand, I hauled everything to Circuit Cellar Galactic HQ for a demo.

Some of the work Nisley details is much more modern. For instance, the photo below shows the Arduino microcontroller boards he has been using in many of his recent projects. Nisley writes:

The processors, from the Atmel AVR microcontroller family, date to the mid-1990s, with a compiler-friendly architecture producing good performance with high-level languages. Barely more than breakout boards wrapped around the microcontrollers, Arduinos provide a convenient way to mount and wire to the microcontroller chips. The hardware may be too expensive to incorporate in a product, but it’s ideal for prototypes and demonstrations.

The Arduino microcontroller project provides a convenient basis for small-scale projects like this NiMH cell tester. Simple interconnections work well with low-speed signals and lowcurrent hardware, but analog gotchas always lie in wait.

Even better, a single person can still comprehend all of a project’s hardware and software, if only because the projects tend to be human scaled. The Arduino’s open-source licensing model fits well with my column’s readily available hardware and firmware: you can reproduce everything from scratch, then extend it to suit your needs.

Circuit Cellar’s Circuit Cellar 25th Anniversary Issue will be available in early 2013. Stay tuned for more updates on the issue’s content.

CC 25th Anniversary Issue: The Past, Present, and Future of Embedded Design

In celebration of Circuit Cellar’s 25th year of publishing electrical engineering articles, we’ll release a special edition magazine around the start of 2013. The issue’s theme will be the past, present, and future of embedded electronics. World-renowned engineers, innovators, academics, and corporate leaders will provide essays, interviews, and projects on embedded design-related topics such as mixed-signal designs, the future of 8-bit chips, rapid prototyping, FPGAs, graphical user interfaces, embedded security, and much more.

Here are some of the essay topics that will appear in the issue:

  • The history of Circuit Cellar — Steve Ciarcia (Founder, Circuit Cellar, Engineer)
  • Do small-RAM devices have a future? — by John Regehr (Professor, University of Utah)
  • A review of embedded security risks — by Patrick Schaumont (Professor, Virginia Tech)
  • The DIY electronics revolution — by Limor Fried (Founder, Adafruit Industries)
  • The future of rapid prototyping — by Simon Ford (ARM mbed, Engineer)
  • Robust design — by George Novacek (Engineer, Retired Aerospace Executive)
  • Twenty-five essential embedded system design principles — by Bob Japenga (Embedded Systems Engineer, Co-Founder, Microtools Inc.)
  • Mixed-signal designs: the 25 errors you’ll make at least once — by Robert Lacoste (Founder, Alciom; Engineer)
  • User interface tips for embedded designers — by Curt Twillinger (Engineer)
  • Thinking in terms of hardware platforms, not chips — by Clemens Valens (Engineer, Elektor)
  • The future of FPGAs — by Colin O’Flynn (Engineer)
  • The future of e-learning for engineers and programmers — by Marty Hauff (e-Learning Specialist, Altium)
  • And more!


We’ll feature interviews with embedded industry leaders and forward-thinking embedded design engineers and programmers such as:

More Content

In addition to the essays and interviews listed above, the issue will also include:

  • PROJECTS will be available via QR codes
  • INFOGRAPHICS depicting tech-related likes, dislikes, and ideas of hundreds of engineers.
  • And a few surprises!

Who Gets It?

All Circuit Cellar subscribers will receive the 25th Anniversary issue. Additionally, the magazine will be available online and promoted by Circuit Cellar’s parent company, Elektor International Media.

Get Involved

Want to get involved? Sponsorship and advertising opportunities are still available. Find out more by contacting Peter Wostrel at Strategic Media Marketing at 978-281-7708 (ext. 100) or peter@smmarketing.us. Inquire about editorial opportunities by contacting the editorial department.

About Circuit Cellar

Steve Ciarcia launched Circuit Cellar magazine in 1988. From its beginning as “Ciarcia’s Circuit Cellar,” a popular, long-running column in BYTE magazine, Ciarcia leveraged his engineering knowledge and passion for writing about it by launching his own publication. Since then, tens of thousands of readers around the world have come to regard Circuit Cellar as the #1 source for need-to-know information about embedded electronics, design, and programming.

Debugging USB Firmware

You’ve written firmware for your USB device and are ready to test it. You attach the device to a PC and the hardware wizard announces: “The device didn’t start.” Or, the device installs but doesn’t send or receive data. Or, data is being dropped, the throughput is low, or some other problem presents itself. What do you do?

This article explores tools and techniques to debug the USB devices you design. The focus is on USB 2.0 devices, but much of the information also applies to developing USB 3.0 (SuperSpeed) devices and USB hosts for embedded systems.


If you do anything beyond a small amount of USB developing, a USB protocol analyzer will save you time and trouble. Analyzers cost less than they used to and are well worth the investment.

A hardware-based analyzer connects in a cable segment upstream from the device under test (see Photo 1).

Photo 1: The device under test connects to the analyzer, which
captures the data and passes it unchanged to the device’s host. The
cable on the back of the analyzer carries the captured data to the
analyzer’s host PC for display.

You can view the data down to each packet’s individual bytes and see exactly what the host and device did and didn’t send (see Photo 2).

Photo 2: This bus capture shows the host’s request for a configuration
descriptor and the bytes the device sent in response. Because the endpoint’s
maximum packet size is eight, the device sends the first 8 bytes in one
transaction and the final byte in a second transaction.

An analyzer can also decode data to show standard USB requests and class-specific data (see Photo 3).

Photo 3: This display decodes a received configuration descriptor and its subordinate descriptors.

To avoid corrupted data caused by the electrical effects of the analyzer’s connectors and circuits, use short cables (e.g., 3’ or less) to connect the analyzer to the device under test.

Software-only protocol analyzers, which run entirely on the device’s host PC, can also be useful. But, this kind of analyzer only shows data at the host-driver level, not the complete packets on the bus.


The first rule for developing USB device firmware is to remember that the host computer controls the bus. Devices just need to respond to received data and events. Device firmware shouldn’t make assumptions about what the host will do next.

For example, some flash drives work under Windows but break when attached to a host with an OS that sends different USB requests or mass-storage commands, sends commands in a different order, or detects errors Windows ignores. This problem is so common that Linux has a file, unusual_devs.h, with fixes for dozens of misbehaving drives.

The first line of defense in writing USB firmware is the free USB-IF Test Suite from the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), the trade group that publishes the USB specifications. During testing, the suite replaces the host’s USB driver with a special test driver. The suite’s USB Command Verifier tool checks for errors (e.g., malformed descriptors, invalid responses to standard USB requests, responses to Suspend and Resume signaling, etc.). The suite also provides tests for devices in some USB classes, such as human interface devices (HID), mass storage, and video.

Running the tests will usually reveal issues that need attention. Passing the tests is a requirement for the right to display the USB-IF’s Certified USB logo.


Like networks, USB communications have layers that isolate different logical functions (see Table 1).

Table 1: USB communications use layers, which are each responsible for a
specific logical function.

The USB protocol layer manages USB transactions, which carry data packets to and from device endpoints. A device endpoint is a buffer that is a source or sink of data at the device. The host sends data to Out endpoints and receives data from In endpoints. (Even though endpoints are on devices, In and Out are defined from the host’s perspective.)

The device layer manages USB transfers, with each transfer moving a chunk of data consisting of one or more transactions. To meet the needs of different peripherals, the USB 2.0 specification defines four transfer types: control, interrupt, bulk, and isochronous.

The function layer manages protocols specific to a device’s function (e.g., mouse, printer, or drive). The function protocols may be a combination of USB class, industry, and vendor-defined protocols.


The layers supported by device firmware vary with the device hardware. At one end of the spectrum, a Future Technology Devices International (FTDI) FT232R USB UART controller handles all the USB protocols in hardware. The chip has a USB device port that connects to a host computer and a UART port that connects to an asynchronous serial port on the device.

Device firmware reads and writes data on the serial port, and the FT232R converts it between the USB and UART protocols. The device firmware doesn’t have to know anything about USB. This feature has made the FT232R and similar chips popular!

An example of a chip that is more flexible but requires more firmware support is Microchip Technology’s PIC18F4550 microcontroller, which has an on-chip, full-speed USB device controller. In return for greater firmware complexity, the PIC18F4550 isn’t limited to a particular host driver and can support any USB class or function.

Each of the PIC18F4550’s USB endpoints has a series of registers—called a buffer descriptor table (BDT)—that store the endpoint buffer’s address, the number of bytes to send or receive, and the endpoint’s status. One of the BDT’s status bits determines the BDT’s ownership. When the CPU owns the BDT, firmware can write to the registers to prepare to send data or to retrieve received data. When the USB module owns the BDT, the endpoint can send or receive data on the bus.

To send a data packet from an In endpoint, firmware stores the bytes’ starting address to send and the number of bytes and sets a register bit to transfer ownership of the BDT to the USB module. The USB module sends the data in response to a received In token packet on the endpoint and returns BDT ownership to the CPU so firmware can set up the endpoint to send another packet.

To receive a packet on an Out endpoint, firmware stores the buffer’s starting address for received bytes and the maximum number of bytes to receive and transfers ownership of the BDT to the USB module. When data arrives, the USB module returns BDT ownership to the CPU so firmware can retrieve the data and transfer ownership of the BDT back to the USB module to enable the receipt of another packet.

Other USB controllers have different architectures and different ways of managing USB communications. Consult your controller chip’s datasheet and programming guide for details. Example code from the chip vendor or other sources can be helpful.


A USB 2.0 transaction consists of a token packet and, as needed, a data packet and a handshake packet. The token packet identifies the packet’s type (e.g., In or Out), the destination device and endpoint, and the data packet direction.

The data packet, when present, contains data sent by the host or device. The handshake packet, when present, indicates the transaction’s success or failure.

The data and handshake packets must transmit quickly after the previous packet, with only a brief inter-packet delay and bus turnaround time, if needed. Thus, device hardware typically manages the receiving and sending of packets within a transaction.

For example, if an endpoint’s buffer has room to accept a data packet, the endpoint stores the received data and returns ACK in the handshake packet. Device firmware can then retrieve the data from the buffer. If the buffer is full because firmware didn’t retrieve previously received data, the endpoint returns NAK, requiring the host to try again. In a similar way, an In endpoint will NAK transactions until firmware has loaded the endpoint’s buffer with data to send.

Fine tuning the firmware to quickly write and retrieve data can improve data throughput by reducing or eliminating NAKs. Some device controllers support ping-pong buffers that enable an endpoint to store multiple packets, alternating between the buffers, as needed.


In all but isochronous transfers, a data-toggle value in the data packet’s packet identification (PID) field guards against missed or duplicate data packets. If you’re debugging a device where data is transmitting on the bus and the receiver is returning ACK but ignoring or discarding the data, chances are good that the device isn’t sending or expecting the correct data-toggle value. Some device controllers handle the data toggles completely in hardware, while others require some firmware control.

Each endpoint maintains its own data toggle. The values are DATA0 (0011B) and DATA1 (1011B). Upon detecting an incoming data packet, the receiver compares its data toggle’s state with the received data toggle. If the values match, the receiver toggles its value and returns ACK, causing the sender to toggle its value for the next transaction.

The next received packet should contain the opposite data toggle, and again the receiver toggles its bit and returns ACK. Except for control transfers, the data toggle on each end continues to alternate in each transaction. (Control transfers always use DATA0 in the Setup stage, toggle the value for each transaction in the Data stage, and use DATA1 in the Status stage.)

If the receiver returns NAK or no response, the sender doesn’t toggle its bit and tries again with the same data and data toggle. If a receiver returns ACK, but for some reason the sender doesn’t see the ACK, the sender thinks the receiver didn’t receive the data and tries again using the same data and data toggle. In this case, the repeated data receiver ignores the data, doesn’t toggle the data toggle, and returns ACK, resynchronizing the data toggles. If the sender mistakenly sends two packets in a row with the same data-toggle value, upon receiving the second packet, the receiver ignores the data, doesn’t toggle its value, and returns ACK.


All USB devices must support control transfers and may support other transfer types. Control transfers provide a structure for sending requests but have no guaranteed delivery time. Interrupt transfers have a guaranteed maximum latency (i.e., delay) between transactions, but the host permits less bandwidth for interrupt transfers compared to other transfer types. Bulk transfers are the fastest on an otherwise idle bus, but they have no guaranteed delivery time, and thus can be slow on a busy bus. Isochronous transfers have guaranteed delivery time but no built-in error correction.

A transfer’s amount of data depends in part on the higher-level protocol that determines the data packets’ contents. For example, a keyboard sends keystroke data in an interrupt transfer that consists of one transaction with 8 data bytes. To send a large file to a drive, the host typically uses one or more large transfers consisting of multiple transactions. For a high-speed drive, each transaction, except possibly the last one, has 512 data bytes, which is the maximum-allowed packet size for high-speed bulk endpoints.

What determines a transfer’s end varies with the USB class or vendor protocol. In many cases, a transfer ends with a short packet, which is a packet that contains less than the packet’s maximum-allowed data bytes. If the transfer has an even multiple of the packet’s maximum-allowed bytes, the sender may indicate the end of the transfer with a zero-length packet (ZLP), which is a data packet with a PID and error-checking bits but no data.

For example, USB virtual serial-port devices in the USB communications device class use short packets to indicate the transfer’s end. If a device has sent data that is an exact multiple of the endpoint’s maximum packet size and the host sends another In token packet, the endpoint should return a ZLP to indicate the data’s end.


Upon device attachment, in a process called enumeration, the host learns about the device by requesting a series of data structures called descriptors. The host uses the descriptors’ information to assign a driver to the device.

If enumeration doesn’t complete, the device doesn’t have an assigned driver, and it can’t perform its function with the host. When Windows fails to find an appropriate driver, the setupapi.dev.log file in Windowsinf (for Windows 7) can offer clues about what went wrong. A protocol analyzer shows if the device returned all requested descriptors and reveals mistakes in the descriptors.

During device development, you may need to change the descriptors (e.g., add, remove, or edit an endpoint descriptor). Windows has the bad habit of remembering a device’s previous descriptors on the assumption that a device will never change its descriptors. To force Windows to use new descriptors, uninstall then physically remove and reattach the device from Windows Device Manager. Another option is to change the device descriptor’s product ID to make the device appear as a different device.


Unlike the other transfer types, control transfers have multiple stages: setup, (optional) data, and status. Devices must accept all error-free data packets that follow a Setup token packet and return ACK. If the device is in the middle of another control transfer and the host sends a new Setup packet, the device must abandon the first transfer and begin the new one. The data packet in the Setup stage contains important information firmware should completely decode (see Table 2).

Table 2: Device firmware should fully decode the data received in a control transfer’s Setup stage. (Source: USB Implementers Forum, Inc.)

The wLength field specifies how many bytes the host wants to receive. A device shouldn’t assume how much data the host wants but should check wLength and send no more than the requested number of bytes.

For example, a request for a configuration descriptor is actually a request for the configuration descriptor and all of its subordinate descriptors. But, in the first request for a device’s configuration descriptor, the host typically sets the wLength field to 9 to request only the configuration descriptor. The descriptor contains a wTotalLength value that holds the number of bytes in the configuration descriptor and its subordinate descriptors. The host then resends the request setting wLength to wTotalLength or a larger value (e.g., FFh). The device returns the requested descriptor set up to wTotalLength. (Don’t assume the host will do it this way. Always check wLength!)

Each Setup packet also has a bmRequestType field. This field specifies the data transfer direction (if any), whether the recipient is the device or an interface or endpoint, and whether the request is a standard USB request, a USB class request, or a vendor-defined request. Firmware should completely decode this field to correctly identify received requests.

A composite device has multiple interfaces that function independently. For example, a printer might have a printer interface, a mass-storage interface for storing files, and a vendor-specific interface to support vendor-defined capabilities. For requests targeted to an interface, the wIndex field typically specifies which interface applies to the request.


For interrupt endpoints, the endpoint descriptor contains a bInterval value that specifies the endpoint’s maximum latency. This value is the longest delay a host should use between transaction attempts.

A host can use the bInterval delay time or a shorter period. For example, if a full-speed In endpoint has a bInterval value of 10, the host can poll the endpoint every 1 to 10 ms. Host controllers typically use predictable values, but a design shouldn’t rely on transactions occurring more frequently than the bInterval value.

Also, the host controller reserves bandwidth for interrupt endpoints, but the host can’t send data until a class or vendor driver provides something to send. When an application requests data to be sent or received, the transfer’s first transaction may be delayed due to passing the request to the driver and scheduling the transfer.

Once the host controller has scheduled the transfer, any additional transaction attempts within the transfer should occur on time, as defined by the endpoint’s maximum latency. For this reason, sending a large data block in a single transfer with multiple transactions can be more efficient than using multiple transfers with a portion of the data in each transfer.


Most devices’ functions fit a defined USB class (e.g., mass storage, printer, audio, etc.). The USB-IF’s class specifications define protocols for devices in the classes.

For example, devices in the HID class must send and receive all data in data structures called reports. The supported report’s length and the meaning of its data (e.g., keypresses, mouse movements, etc.) are defined in a class-specific report descriptor.

If your HID-class device is sending data but the host application isn’t seeing the data, verify the number of bytes the device is sending matches the number of bytes in a defined report. The device should prepend a report-ID byte to the data only if the HID supports report IDs other than the zero default value.

In many devices, class specifications define class-specific requests or other requirements. For example, a mass storage device that uses the bulk-only protocol must provide a unique serial number in a string descriptor. Carefully read and heed any class specifications that apply to your device!

Many devices also support industry protocols to perform higher-level functions. Printers typically support one or more printer-control languages (e.g., PCL and Postscript). Mass-storage devices support SCSI commands to transfer data blocks and a file system (e.g., FAT32) to define a directory structure.

The higher-level industry protocols don’t depend on a particular hardware interface, so there is little about debugging them that is USB-specific. But, because these protocols can be complicated, example code for your device can be helpful.

In the end, much about debugging USB firmware is like debugging any hardware or software. A good understanding of how the communications should work provides a head start on writing good firmware and finding the source of any problems that may appear.

Jan Axelson is the author of USB Embedded Hosts, USB Complete, and Serial Port Complete. Jan’s PORTS web forum is available at www.lvr.com.


Jan Axelson’s Lakeview Research, “USB Development Tools: Protocol analyzers,” www.lvr.com/development_tools.htm#analyzers.

This article appears in Circuit Cellar 268 (November 2012).

Q&A: Hai (Helen) Li (Academic, Embedded System Researcher)

Helen Li came to the U.S. from China in 2000 to study for a PhD at Purdue University. Following graduation she worked for Intel, Qualcomm, and Seagate. After about five years of working in industry, she transitioned to academia by taking a position at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University, where she teaches courses such as circuit design (“Introduction to VLSI”), advanced computer architecture (“VLSI System and Architecture Design”), and system-level applications (“Real-Time Embedded System Design”).

Hai (Helen) Li

In a recent interview Li described her background and provided details about her research relating to spin-transfer torque RAM-based memory hierarchy and memristor-based computing architecture.

An abridged version of the interview follows.

NAN: What were some of your most notable experiences working for Intel, Qualcomm, and Seagate?

HELEN: The industrial working experience is very valuable to my whole career life. At Seagate, I led a design team on a test chip for emerging memory technologies. Communication and understanding between device engineers and design communities is extremely important. The joined effects from all the related disciplines (not just one particular area anymore) became necessary. The concept of cross layers (including device/circuit/architecture/system) cooptimization, and design continues in my research career.

NAN: In 2009, you transitioned from an engineering career to a career teaching electrical and computer engineering at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University (NYU). What prompted this change?

HELEN: After five years of working at various industrial companies on wireless communication, computer systems, and storage, I realized I am more interested in independent research and teaching. After careful consideration, I decided to return to an academic career and later joined the NYU faculty.

NAN: How long have you been teaching at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU? What courses do you currently teach and what do you enjoy most about teaching?

HELEN: I have been teaching at NYU-Poly since September 2009. My classes cover a wide range of computer engineering, from basic circuit design (“Introduction to VLSI”), to advanced computer architecture (“VLSI System and Architecture Design”), to system-level applications (“Real-Time Embedded System Design”).

Though I have been teaching at NYU-Poly, I will be taking a one-year leave of absence from fall 2012 to summer 2013. During this time, I will continue my research on very large-scale integration (VLSI) and computer engineering at University of Pittsburgh.

I enjoy the interaction and discussions with students. They are very smart and creative. Those discussions always inspire new ideas. I learn so much from students.

Helen and her students are working on developing a 16-Kb STT-RAM test chip.

NAN: You’ve received several grants from institutions including the National Science Foundation and the Air Force Research Lab to fund your embedded systems endeavors. Tell us a little about some of these research projects.

HELEN: The objective of the research for “CAREER: STT-RAM-based Memory Hierarchy and Management in Embedded Systems” is to develop an innovative spin-transfer torque random access memory (STT-RAM)-based memory hierarchy to meet the demands of modern embedded systems for low-power, fast-speed, and high-density on-chip data storage.

This research provides a comprehensive design package for efficiently integrating STT-RAM into modern embedded system designs and offers unparalleled performance and power advantages. System architects and circuit designers can be well bridged and educated by the research innovations. The developed techniques can be directly transferred to industry applications under close collaborations with several industry partners, and directly impact future embedded systems. The activities in the collaboration also include tutorials at the major conferences on the technical aspects of the projects and new course development.

The main goal of the research for “CSR: Small Collaborative Research: Cross-Layer Design Techniques for Robustness of the Next-Generation Nonvolatile Memories” is to develop design technologies that can alleviate the general robustness issues of next-generation nonvolatile memories (NVMs) while maintaining and even improving generic memory specifications (e.g., density, power, and performance). Comprehensive solutions are integrated from architecture, circuit, and device layers for the improvement on the density, cost, and reliability of emerging nonvolatile memories.

The broader impact of the research lies in revealing the importance of applying cross-layer design techniques to resolve the robustness issues of the next-generation NVMs and the attentions to the robust design context.

The research for “Memristor-Based Computing Architecture: Design Methodologies and Circuit Techniques” was inspired by memristors, which have recently attracted increased attention since the first real device was discovered by Hewlett-Packard Laboratories (HP Labs) in 2008. Their distinctive memristive characteristic creates great potentials in future computing system design. Our objective is to investigate process-variation aware memristor modeling, design methodology for memristor-based computing architecture, and exploitation of circuit techniques to improve reliability and density.

The scope of this effort is to build an integrated design environment for memristor-based computing architecture, which will provide memristor modeling and design flow to circuit and architecture designers. We will also develop and implement circuit techniques to achieve a more reliable and efficient system.

An electric car model controlled by programmable emerging memories is in the developmental stages.

NAN: What types of projects are you and your students currently working on?

HELEN: Our major efforts are on device modeling, circuit design techniques, and novel architectures for computer systems and embedded systems. We primarily focus on the potentials of emerging devices and leveraging their advantages. Two of our latest projects are a 16-Kb STT-RAM test chip and an electric car model controlled by programmable emerging memories.

The complete interview appears in Circuit Cellar 267 (October 2012).

CC268: The History of Embedded Tech

At the end of September 2012, an enthusiastic crew of electrical engineers and journalists (and significant others) traveled to Portsmouth, NH, from locations as far apart as San Luis Obispo, CA,  and Paris, France, to celebrate Circuit Cellar’s 25th anniversary. Attendees included Don Akkermans (Director, Elektor International Media), Steve Ciarcia (Founder, Circuit Cellar), the current magazine staff, and several well-known engineers, editors, and columnists. The event marked the beginning of the next chapter in the history of this long-revered publication. As you’d expect, contributors and staffers both reminisced about the past and shared ideas about its future. And in many instances, the conversations turned to the content in this issue, which was at that time entering the final phase of production. Why? We purposely designed this issue (and next month’s) to feature a diversity of content that would represent the breadth of coverage we’ve come to deliver during the past quarter century. A quick look at this issue’s topics gives you an idea of how far embedded technology has come. The topics also point to the fact that some of the most popular ’80s-era engineering concerns are as relevant as ever. Let’s review.

In the earliest issues of Circuit Cellar, home control was one of the hottest topics. Today, inventive DIY home control projects are highly coveted by professional engineers and newbies alike. On page 16, Scott Weber presents an interesting GPS-based time server for lighting control applications. An MCU extracts time from GPS data and transmits it to networked devices.

The time-broadcasting device includes a circuit board that’s attached to a GPS module. (Source: S. Weber, CC268)

Thiadmer Riemersma’s DIY automated component dispenser is a contemporary solution to a problem that has frustrated engineers for decades (p. 26). The MCU-based design simplifies component management and will be a welcome addition to any workbench.

The DIY automated component dispenser. (Source: T. Riemersma, CC268)

USB technology started becoming relevant in the mid-to-late 1990s, and since then has become the go-to connection option for designers and end users alike. Turn to page 30 for Jan Axelson’s  tips about debugging USB firmware. Axelson covers controller architectures and details devices such as the FTDI FT232R USB UART controller and Microchip Technology’s PIC18F4550 microcontroller.

Debugging USB firmware (Source: J. Axelson, CC268)

Electrical engineers have been trying to “control time” in various ways since the earliest innovators began studying and experimenting with electric charge. Contemporary timing control systems are implemented in a amazing ways. For instance, Richard Lord built a digital camera controller that enables him to photograph the movement of high-speed objects (p. 36).

Security and product reliability are topics that have been on the minds of engineers for decades. Whether you’re working on aerospace electronics or a compact embedded system for your workbench (p. 52), you’ll want to ensure your data is protected and that you’ve gone through the necessary steps to predict your project’s likely reliability (p. 60).

The issue’s last two articles detail how to use contemporary electronics to improve older mechanical systems. On page 64 George Martin presents a tachometer design you can implement immediately in a machine shop. And lastly, on page 70, Jeff Bachiochi wraps up his series “Mechanical Gyroscope Replacement.” The goal is to transmit reliable data to motor controllers. The photo below shows the Pololu MinIMU-9.

The Pololu MinIMU-9’s sensor axes are aligned with the mechanical gyro so the x and y output pitch and roll, respectively. (Source: J. Bachiochi, CC268)

Electronics Engineering Crossword (Issue 267)

The answers to Circuit Cellar’s October electronics engineering crossword puzzle are now available.


1.     QUADRATURESIGNAL—Can be produced using two sensors spaced at odd half-slot multiples around a single track [two words]

4.     MICROELECTROMECHANICAL—This type of system’s size ranges from 20 µm to 1 mm

8.     MANCHESTERCODE—A low-to-high transition means “0” and a high-to-low transition means “1” [two words]

9.     ABSOLUTEDECODER—Because these devices have only one track per bit of resolution, they can require large diameters, which gives them a nonvolatile and unique output for each position [two words]

15.   BATTERY—Italian physicist Alessandro Volta (1745–1827) is credited with inventing the first one of these in the 1800s

16.   DIGITALFILTER—A piece of software, firmware, or logic circuit that takes a digital data flow as an input and provides a filtered version of this signal on its output [two words]

17.   CONCURRENCY—Topic of columnist Bob Japenga’s ongoing article series, which began in Circuit Cellar 263, 2012

18.   EXBIBYTE—1,152,921,504,606,846,976 bytes

19.   RELATIVEHUMIDITY—Amount of water vapor in the atmosphere expressed as a percentage of the total amount the air can hold at the current temperature [two words]


2.     ACCELEROMETER—The design in Mark Pedley’s article, “eCompass: Build and Calibrate a Tilt-Compensating Electronic Compass” (Circuit Cellar 265, 2012), was built using one of these

3.     SANDER—New Zealand-based Circuit Cellar contributor and recent interviewee who is fascinated with advanced robot technologies

5.     PHASELOCKEDLOOP—This control system generateS an output frequency, which can be either higher or lower than the input, based on a reference input clock [three words]

6.     NEUROMORPHICCircuit Cellar’s October’s interviewee, Helen Li, believes this type of computing will solve the contradiction between the limited functions of computing systems and the ever-increasing variety of applications

7.     ELECTROSTATIC—This type of cell consists of a thin plastic film sandwiched between two metal stators

10.   BOOSTCONVERTER—Its output voltage is greater than its input voltage [two words]

11.   ARMSTRONG—American engineer (1890—1954) who invented the regenerative circuit, the super-regenerative circuit, the superheterodyne receiver, and modern frequency modulation (FM) radio transmission

12.   INCLINOMETER—Used to measure tilt

13.   SHALLENBERGER—American engineer (1860–1898) who invented an induction meter to measure alternating current

14.   MEMRISTOR—The functional equivalent of a synapse


Electronics Engineering Crossword (Issue 266)

The answers to Circuit Cellar’s September electronics engineering crossword puzzle are now available.


3.     ZUSE—German engineer inventor and engineer (1910–1995) who is credited with creating the Z3, a program-controlled Turing-complete computer

5.     ROOTMEANSQUARE—Alternating voltage/current with the exact same energy content as the same value of direct current; a.k.a., quadric mean [three words]

10.   BLOB—Stores binary data; synonym: drop

13.   KLYSTRON—A specialized linear-beam vacuum tube

16.   ELECTROMAGNET—English physicist and inventor William Sturgeon (1783-1850) is credited with using electric current to develop the first one of these objects in 1825

17.   LACOSTE—Circuit Cellar columnist who frequently writes about frequency

18.   SMARTSWITCH—An energy-saving device that was the topic of Fergus Dixon’s article (Circuit Cellar, 263 2012) [two words]

19.   PICOAMMETER—Measures low current


1.     PUBLICKEYCRYPTOGRAPHY—Decodes using two pieces of information, one public and one private [three words]

2.     COMPRESSIONDRIVER—A loudspeaker that achieves high efficiencies by using a consolidating technique [two words]

4.     SPIDER—The flexible collar that helps keep a voice coil magnetically centered

6.     MICROPOWERIMPULSERADAR—A pocket-sized radar that runs off AA batteries and is often used as a basic motion sensor for security applications [three words]

7.     ALPHATESTING—Check performed by an independent team on a system installed at a place other than the targeted customer’s site [two words]

8.     ATOMICOPERATION—An action that is non-interruptible by any other one and never presents partial results to an outside observer [two words]

9.     EMBEDDED—As Circuit Cellar prepares to celebrate its 25th anniversary, a  past, present, and future key theme of the magazine centers on this type of technology

11.   SIGNALPROCESSING—Involves measuring physical quantities with time and spatial variances [two words]

12.   FLOWCHARTING—Jeff Bachiochi describes how to use this technique to write code in this issue

14.   CONVOLUTION—Mark Csele’s article, “DSP-Based Color Organ” (Circuit Cellar, 249 2012), used this technique to create high-performance filters

15.   MULTIPLEXER—A device that combines input signals, shares a single transmission channel, and enables data compression


Issue 268: EQ Answers

Problem 1: A transformer’s windings, when measured individually (all other windings disconnected), have a certain amount of inductance. If you have a 1:1 transformer (both windings have the same inductance) and connect the windings in series, what value of inductance do you get?

Answer 1: Assuming you connect the windings in-phase, you’ll have double the number of turns, so the resulting inductance will be about four times the inductance of one winding alone.

If you hook them up out of phase, the inductance will cancel out and you’ll be left with the resistance of the wire and a lot of parasitic inter-winding capacitance.

Problem 2: If you connect the windings in parallel, what value of inductance do you get?

Answer 2: With the two windings connected in-phase and in parallel, the inductance will be exactly the same as the single-winding case. But the resulting inductor will be able to handle twice the current, as long as the core itself doesn’t saturate.

Question 3: Suppose you have a 32-bit word in your microprocessor, and you want to count how many contiguous strings ones that appear in it. For example, the word “01110001000111101100011100011111” contains six such strings. Can you come up with an algorithm that uses simple shifts, bitwise logical and arithmetic operators, but —here’s the twist—does not require iterating over each bit in the word?

Answer 3: Here’s a solution that iterates over the number of strings, rather than the number of bits in the word.

int nstrings (unsigned long int x)
   int result = 0;

   /* convert x into a word that has a '1' for every
    * transition from 0 to 1 or 1 to 0 in the original
    * word.
   x ^= (x << 1);

   /* every pair of ones in the new word represents
    * a string of ones in the original word. Remove
    * them two at a time and keep count.
   while (x) {
     /* remove the lowest set bit from x; this
      * represents the start of a string of ones.
     x &= ~(x & -x);

     /* remove the next set bit from x; this
      * represents the end of that string of ones.
     x &= ~(x & -x);
   return result;

Problem 4: For the purpose of timing analysis, the operating conditions of an FPGA are sometimes known as “PVT,” which stands for “process, voltage, and temperature.” Voltage and temperature are pretty much self-explanatory, but what does process mean in this context?

Answer 4: The term process in this case refers to the manufacturing process at the plant where they make the FPGA. It’s a measure of the statistical variability of the physical characteristics from chip to chip as they come off the line.
This includes everything from mask alignment to etching times to doping levels. These things affect electrical parameters such as sheet and contact resistance, actual transistor gains, and thresholds and parasitic capacitances.
These kinds of variations are unavoidable, and the P in PVT is an attempt to account for their effects in the timing analysis. The idea is to make the analysis conservative enough so that your design will work reliably despite these variations.

Contributed by David Tweed

Team-Based Engineering

On August 6, 2012, NASA’s Curiosity rover successfully landed in Gale Crater on Mars after traveling a daunting 352 million miles. It was a triumphant moment for the scores of Curiosity team members who had spent years engineering the mission. And it has become the archetypal example of the benefit of team-based, multidisciplinary engineering.

This is an image of the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) located on Curiosity’s arm. (Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS)

In Circuit Cellar 267 (October  2012), Steve Ciarcia refers to the Curiosity effort as a point of departure for expounding the importance teamwork and intelligent project management.  He argues that engineering endeavors of all sorts and sizes require the extraordinary focus and collaboration of multiple specialists all working toward a common goal.

Several weeks ago, I was following the successful landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars, which got me reminiscing about the importance of teamwork on large engineering projects. Obviously, a large project requires a significant number of people due to the sheer amount of work. But, more importantly, a project’s various tasks require a balanced mix of skills for successful and timely completion.

Naturally, you want engineers working in areas where they have the skills and confidence to succeed. That’s when they’ll do their best work. At a basic level, all engineers share a distinctive trait: the ability to make something you want from technology and materials. This is the best definition of “engineer” I have heard. But, as I said last month, different engineers have different interests, skills, and experience. Some engineers are good at understanding the subtleties of how a large systems’ components interact, while others are good at low-level details (e.g., analog circuit design, mechanical design, or software programming). Diversity of skills among team members is important and can greatly strengthen a team.

At some point, we all look to ascend the corporate ladder and, for most companies, that involves engineers taking on management responsibilities. Actively encouraging engineers to work in areas outside their comfort zones encourages greater diversity in problem-solving approaches. Further, inspiring engineers to seek responsibility and expand their comfort zones can make them better engineers for the long term. While this is mainly true about engineers who are employees, it also applies to any contractor or consultant involved in a long-term company relationship.

Some engineers can jump into just about any area and do well. However, it is rarely in the interest of the project or good team dynamics to follow that impulse. Those engineers need to enable the specialists to do the work they’re best at and only jump into situations where they can do the most good. In other words, when team management is your primary task, engineer or not, you need to take on a mentoring role, often teaching rather than doing.

Communication among team members is also key. There must be enough of it, but not too much. I have seen teams schedule so many meetings there isn’t any time left for individuals to make progress on their assigned tasks. Meetings need to be short, to the point, and involve only those people who have a vested interest in the information being exchanged. This can range from two engineers conversing in a hallway to a large project-wide meeting that keeps everyone in sync on a project’s overall goals and status. But beware, it can be difficult to keep big meetings from getting diverted into the minutiae of a particular problem. This needs to be avoided at all costs.

Even when the schedule is tight, overstaffing usually has a negative benefit. The math suggests that project completion time should go down by the inverse of the number of team members. However, this ignores the overhead of more communication among team members, which goes up by the square of the number of participants. If there are too many team members, they may start getting in each other’s way and have less sense of ownership in what they’re doing. Basically, there are some tasks that take a fixed amount of time. As the saying goes, nine women can’t make a baby in one month!

Motivating the team is another key factor that should be a priority shared by the team and technical management. No matter how large or small a team member’s assigned tasks, if he feels he has the responsibility and the recognition for getting that task done, he’ll be more engaged and motivated to do well. Moving team members from task to task destroys any sense of ownership. Granted, every project has the occasional fire that needs to be extinguished—all hands on deck—but, if a project is constantly in that state, then it’s pretty much doomed to fail.

Regardless of whether you are engineering a Mars rover at NASA or creating the next great social media “widget” at a venture-capital funded start-up, the dynamics of successful project management have an established methodology. Design engineers are creative and it is important to give them the flexibility to unleash their creativity—but keep it within bounds. Most projects are time and cost sensitive. Ratifying your step up the corporate ladder only comes by ensuring the project is completed within budget and in a timely fashion.

Circuit Cellar 267 (October 2012) is now available.