Time-standard based stories are probably on-topic, but for those wanting a wider range of subjects without posting to the list, http://hpmemoryproject.org/ has good stuff. And, of course, the http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/journal.html
Tek produced a book : https://www.radiomuseum.org/lf/b/winning-with-people-the-first-40-years-of-tektronix/ On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 3:40 PM paul swed <[email protected]> wrote: > hello to the group. > I really am enjoying the stories and in reality history about a great > company that I am very proud to actually own a lot of its technology. > Though purchased for $/lbs at hamfests and such. All needing TLC and all of > it teaching me more then a few lessons on how to do things. > So though the stories center around real world trade offs. The fact is the > guts were still very good. Says the guy with home brew crystal references. > Chuckle. > > My one and only story was circa 1994-98 and video. Was at HP to see demos > of their video server. Always thought it would be a great place to work. > But going through the sea of cubes and seeing what it would actually be > like settled that forever. > Keep up the stories please. > Regards > Paul > WB8TSL > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 12:37 AM Rice, Hugh (IPH Writing Systems) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I’ll add a bit to Rick’s story, from my manufacturing engineering > > perspective. > > I was hired into PFS manufacturing engineering in 1984, specifically to > > work with Roberto (Robert) Montesi on the 5061B product. Roberto was > the > > production engineer on the 5061A, and acting “project manager” of our > > little two man development team. We were funded by manufacturing, as > Rick > > noted, but sat in the R&D lab for about 18 months as we redesigned > > (updated) a bunch of stuff on the 5061A. > > > > As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Roberto was a very good engineer > (compared > > to me at least), and a great mentor. One story he told me about himself > > that I recall: He was originally from Nicaragua, and somehow wound up in > > the US Army during Vietnam, spending some time in combat there as a GI. > > At one point the Army wanted to send him to officers candidate school, > > since he scored so well on all the tests. He was a smart guy, with > > perfect English. Well into the process, they finally realized that he > > wasn’t a US citizen, and thus couldn’t be an officer. He seemed to > make > > it through the whole Vietnam experience with minimal PTSD (as far as I > > could tell), and would tell an interesting (and likely cynical) war story > > now an then. Like Rick said, Roberto kept his head down, and we sat in > a > > shared work area and did our 5061B thing, surrounded by the team working > on > > the new 5350,51,52 microwave counters, led by their very energetic > project > > manager Bob Renner. The real R&D guys treated us well, even though we > > were 2nd class production guys. (Not too many years before this, R&D > > engineers and production engineers were not on the same pay scale, and > > really were second class in HP eyes. The feeling of not being a “full” > > engineer still lingered in 1984.) > > > > As Rick said, PFS products like the cesium standards were cash cow > > products, and didn’t have a R&D staff at all. All the “upgrades” were > > funded by manufacturing, to keep this product line viable. The whole > > development effort was about extending the production life of the 5061A. > > We were selling about 15/month, with an average price of about $35K. > The > > gross margins were very high (sales price – material costs), and the > > product line delivered 4 or 5 million in gross profits to the division a > > year. It was well worth having a couple of manufacturing engineers > > freshen things up to keep this cow healthy. And Roberto was still the > > production engineer for the 5061A during this time, so kinda doing double > > duty. > > > > My job on the 5061B was to redesign the clock display and the battery > > charger. These were both part of the popular time-keeping option 003, > > which was primarily the 1pps output circuit. The battery backup was to > > prevent the 1PPS signal from losing syc. If there was a power > > interruption. I recall the battery charger had a huge mica capacitor > that > > couldn’t be purchased any more, and a crazy design with obscure TTL > > counters. The clock display was even crazier. Not nixie tubes, but > two > > or three circular PC boards driving LED displays, and again obscure ICs > > that were hard to procure. Hard to build, and really expensive. (More > > on these in another story on another day.) > > > > Roberto redesigned the frequency divider module (5MHz in; 10MHz, 1MHz, > > 100kHz out – another odd design rooted in 5060 history), the A3 power > > regulator board, and some stuff internal to one (both?) of the high > voltage > > power supplies, used for the Ion Pump and Electron Multiplier. Maybe > some > > other things too. For all of these, obsolete components was the driving > > force. > > > > By 1984 standards, there were some really crazy circuits still in the > > instrument (still another story for another day), but as Rick said, in > low > > volume manufacturing, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. In the case of > the > > 5061, don’t even think about touching it. > > > > Rick’s memory of the management dynamics are similar to mine. A 5061A > to > > 5061B “upgrade”, particularly if funded by manufacturing, was easy to get > > approved. Entire new developments were hard to justify. The > division > > was under a lot of financial stress in the 1980s. Peace was breaking out > > as the cold war was winding down, and DOD spending, which drove a lot of > > instrumentation sales, was shrinking. Digital oscilloscopes and > > synthesized frequency generators were obsoleting the need for frequency > > counters, the majority of the divisions revenue. PFS was profitable, > but > > zero growth. We also build laser interferometers, which did amazing > high > > precision displacement measurements, but they weren’t growing either. > > While profitable, the division revenue was shrinking maybe 10% per year. > > In the 8 years I was there, headcount went from about 1500 to 500 > > people. Management was desperate to fund new products that would lead > to > > growth. I recall the general manager at the time (Jim Horner), having a > > metric for every new development on how much growth it would contribute > to > > the division. It was never enough. Redesigning the 5061A yielded zero > > growth (the demand for cesium standards was pretty flat) and thus not a > > priority. A very light touch by manufacturing to keep it viable was > > appropriate. > > > > This email chain has unleashed a flood of memories from 30 years ago. > > Hopefully a few of you find this walk down memory lane interesting. > I > > have a few more stories in the que if any of you are still interested. > > > > Hugh Rice > > > > > > From: time-nuts <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Richard > > (Rick) Karlquist > > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 7:35 AM > > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement < > > [email protected]>; Magnus Danielson <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Long life products, obsolete components, and > code > > 4 parts. RE: HP Cesium Standards in the International Atomic Time Scale, > > the legend of Felix Lazarus, and the "top cover > > > > The HP way (AFAIK) was as follows: > > > > They were making the 5061A and the > > default philosophy was don't fix it > > if it ain't broke. However, products > > reach a tipping point. In the case > > of the 5061A, the obsolescence of the > > Nixie tube was the straw that broke > > the camel's back. But there were a > > bunch of other issues that had also > > accumulated a critical mass. > > > > I was hired into HP in 1979 to work in the > > Precision Frequency Sources R&D section > > to work on the 10816 rubidium. That > > project was eventually cancelled by a "new sheriff > > in town" event upstairs, and took the > > section with it. So they had to somehow > > boot leg the 61B without an R&D section. > > > > A production engineer > > named Robert (I forgot his last name) was > > the project manager. He basically tried > > to keep his head down and not attract a > > lot of attention. I am thinking that all > > the money came out of the production engineering > > budget. > > > > Another HP way thing is that we would > > go from A to B in order to get the clock > > running on the end of support life. Upper > > management would be not be suspicious of an > > A to B, as opposed to a new product number, > > which would be a red flag. The cesium line was > > to be run as a cash cow, period. Len pulled a > > rabbit out of the hat when he got permission for > > the 5071A. > > > > So the 61B was a bridge product to keep the > > plane flying until the 71A came out. It > > basically contained no gratuitous improvements, > > only stuff that had to be fixed. > > > > Rick > > > > On 12/30/2018 5:23 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote: > > > Dear Hugh, > > > > > > Many thanks for another nice post from the good old times. > > > Was a nice morning reading. > > > > > > I didn't know that the 5061B was rebuilt with removing odd parts in > > > mind, but it makes sense. Interesting system with Code 1 to Code 4. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Magnus > > > > > > On 12/29/18 5:36 AM, Rice, Hugh (IPH Writing Systems) wrote: > > >> My “Test and Measurement” days with HP, from 1984 to 1992, were all in > > manufacturing (a.k.a. production) engineering. A major task was dealing > > with the endless list of obsoleted components, since many of our products > > had designs dating back 10 or 20 years, into the wild west early days of > > semiconductors and integrated circuits. > > >> > > >> In addition to Frequency and Time products (which we called “PFS” – > > Precision Frequency Sources), HP’s Santa Clara Division (SCD) also had > the > > frequency counter product line. I managed the production engineering team > > for counters from 1988 to 1992; the job that I had to pass the R&D > > engineering new hire interview to qualify for. This technology was > invented > > in the 1950s and even with many new models and upgrades, we still were > > shipping “classics” products from the early 1970s in low volume in about > > 1990. The 5340 microwave counter and 5328 universal counters come to > mind. > > We kept raising the prices, because we had newer, better, cheaper > counters > > for sale. But the old ones kept selling because they were designed into > > some DOD test system, and the hassle of designing in a new instrument was > > more expensive than buying an new (but obsolete) counter for our > customers. > > The parade of obsolete components seemed to never end on these old > units. I > > recall talking to the marketing manager, Murli Thurmali (sp?) about > > obsoleting some of these products, and he would wisely respond: “Tell me > > how you are going to replace the million dollars of lost revenue.” The > > manufacturing manager, Chuck Taubman, would likewise say: “Our margins > are > > well over 50% on these products, that money pays overhead, which is our > > salaries. Show me $500K in cost savings before we obsolete them.” Turns > out > > that even though they were a hassle, it was relatively easy money, so we > > kept building and selling them. > > >> > > >> The PFS products were similar in this regard. The product line had > > largely been developed in the 1960s and 1970s, volumes were low, but > prices > > and margins were high. Yeah, they took some effort to keep in production, > > but the development was done, and it was good money. HP was a business > > after all, and if we didn’t make money, we didn’t have jobs. The was a > > great education for me, brand new to management, learning that HP may be > a > > cool technology company, but we only had jobs as long as the business was > > profitable, and preferably growing. Nothing was guaranteed. > > >> > > >> HP instituted a system of “Codes” for parts, to measure how well we > > were designing our products for long production lives and low materials > > management overhead costs. Code 1 was best. Industry standard parts > > available from many sources cheaply. Code 2 were OK to use. Code 3 was > > something really special, and needed a good reason to include. Code 4 > > brought the scorn of procurement engineers, and brought significant > > management review. > > >> > > >> The easy way out for production engineering to deal with obsoleted > > component was a life time buy. The Materials group hated this, because > they > > had hundreds of other parts already on life time buys. What if they get > > lost or damaged, or the last batch was defective, or the product lasted > > longer than we expected? A product like the 5061A, at ~200 build per > year, > > was a typical challenge. 10 more years of life? Buy 2400 parts? Perhaps > > double it to 5000 parts. The response from component buyers was easy to > > predict: “But VendorX wants $2.31 for this ancient transistor. We’re not > > tying up $10K in one part. We have dozens of parts like this, we can’t > > afford all this inventory.” So we would try harder. Maybe a 2N222A, or a > > 2N3904 will work. Procurements loves these parts. We’d try them out, and > > hope we didn’t miss something in the qualification. New parts never had > the > > same specs at the old parts, and the original designer was long gone, and > > design intent documentation non-existent. I bet half the time the old > > transistor just happened to be on the engineers bench back in 1969, > worked > > fine, and he just used it. The Code 1,2,3,4 process was designed to > > discourage this kind of design thinking. > > >> > > >> When we upgraded the 5061A Cesium Standard to the 5061B in 1984-85, > the > > primary objective was to eliminate all the code 3 and code 4 parts. > > Designing out all the old stuff wound up being a fantastic education in > > component technologies, reading and interpreting data sheets, dealing > with > > vendors, worrying about inventory control and so on. Our attitude was > > trying to make a product we could ship indefinitely, even though it was > > already over 20 years old. We had a history of selling PFS instruments > for > > decades, and we were preparing for decades more. > > >> > > >> Bob kb8tq wrote: “In the case of the 5071, I’d bet a pretty good brand > > of six pack that nobody on the planet would have guessed 20 years ago > that > > it still would be in production today.” > > >> > > >> Well, I can’t prove that Bob would lose this bet (Maybe Rick K could), > > and I didn’t work on the 5071. But for PFS products, in production > > engineering, we had been building and selling these instruments for > > decades, with no end in sight. Volumes were low, so they didn’t get > > redesigned very often. I’ll bet the same six pack that the 5071 team felt > > it would be a VERY long time before HP designed a replacement for the > 5071. > > >> > > >> Rick – any memories you can share? > > >> > > >> Happy New Year, > > >> > > >> Hugh Rice > > >> > > >> > > >> From: time-nuts <[email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]>> On Behalf Of Bob kb8tq > > >> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 9:35 AM > > >> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement < > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > >> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] HP Cesium Standards in the International > > Atomic Time Scale, the legend of Felix Lazarus, and the "top cover > > >> > > >> Hi > > >> > > >> Indeed back at Motorola, a lot of that stuff got transferred into the > > engineering stock room > > >> after a while. Just how that worked out budget wise …. one wonders …. > > >> > > >> Bob > > >> > > >>> On Dec 24, 2018, at 11:53 AM, jimlux <[email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]% > > 3cmailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On 12/24/18 5:36 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote: > > >>>> Hi > > >>>> The gotcha is - if you have a very unique part in a device and it > > goes away, how > > >>>> many years of stock do you buy on the “last chance” order? > > >>>> In the case of the 5071, I’d bet a pretty good brand of six pack > that > > nobody on the > > >>>> planet would have guessed 20 years ago that it still would be in > > production today. > > >>> > > >>> EOL buys for a product line are plausible. But if you're building > > one-off (or limited quantity)- maybe not. At work (JPL) there's a whole > > aspect to sparing that's kind of subtle - you get funded per mission, and > > it has a cost cap at the proposal stage. > > >>> > > >>> Buying extra parts "just because" cuts into your budget - what do you > > give up because you bought extra parts, maybe some engineering hours? or > > test time? - it's easy to say "oh what's a few parts here and there", but > > pretty soon, it's getting to be a big part of your budget. > > >>> > > >>> So you buy enough parts to build what you're going to launch, plus > > enough maybe for an EM or breadboard, and then a few spares in case > there's > > some assembly errors, or you need to scrap a board. If the problem > happens > > early enough, you've got time to burn some reserves and order more. > > >>> > > >>> The other problem in the space business is that there is a lot of > > desire to re-use known good designs. That part may have been a long way > > from EOL when it was first used, but now, 5-10 years later, maybe it's > EOL, > > and there's no obvious "drop in" replacement. Do you redesign, or do you > > buy the last remaining stock and hope for the best? > > >>> > > >>> This tends to be a cascading issue - mission A designs and uses part > > X, and has spares. Smaller Mission B uses the spares to build their > widget > > using the Mission A design. They buy a few spares too. Smaller Mission C > > does the same thing. Now we're 10 years in, in some cases still using > spare > > parts bought by original Mission A. > > >>> > > >>> I am still using spare connectors and such from Cassini (launched in > > 1997) in things like breadboards at work. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>> On Dec 24, 2018, at 1:59 AM, Hal Murray <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]% > > 3cmailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]>> said: > > >>>>>> and the "market lifetime" of parts today is much shorter. There > are > > lots of > > >>>>>> parts from Hittite that were essentially "run on this line only", > > and when > > >>>>>> they moved geometries, they're never to be seen again. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Most vendors make a lot of noise before they pull the plug on a > > part. The > > >>>>> usual deal is that they fill all orders placed by a specified date > - > > lifetime > > >>>>> buy. Distributors typically send a note to anybody who has > purchased > > them, or > > >>>>> maybe only purchased significant quantities. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If a part isn't expensive, you can afford to buy extras beyond what > > you expect > > >>>>> to need to cover some what-ifs. That probably doesn't cover > > something like > > >>>>> the 5071 being in production for 30 years. But it could give you a > > few years > > >>>>> warning - maybe enough time to find a substitute and/or redesign > > that section. > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]% > > 3cmailto:[email protected]>> > > >>> To unsubscribe, go to > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com< > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com>< > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com< > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com>> > > >>> and follow the instructions there. > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]% > > 3cmailto:[email protected]>> > > >> To unsubscribe, go to > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com< > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com>< > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com< > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com>> > > >> and follow the instructions there. > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]> > > >> To unsubscribe, go to > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com< > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com> > > >> and follow the instructions there. > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]> > > > To unsubscribe, go to > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com< > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com> > > > and follow the instructions there. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto: > > [email protected]> > > To unsubscribe, go to > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com< > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com> > > and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe, go to > > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com > > and follow the instructions there. > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to > http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com and follow the instructions there.
