6 responses to “The $150,000 Wire, Part 2/2”

  1. Bill

    That’s one reason I don’t envy you silicon guys, re-spinning a PCB is comparatively chump change.

  2. Paul Clarke

    Dispite my giggles I think these are two really good blogs as it shows how we (engineers) can get pushed into a corner to turn stuff out quick. I’d be interested to know if you still made the deadline and if you had tested the circuit in full would it have cost less?

    It’s really hard to maintain procedures as management and sales often push us to cut corners. “why does it take so long” is a common question. The answer is simple, it cost less now than it will in a week to fix the same bug.

    Hopefully, Flux Corp will be less keen to hit the GO button and check all the tick boxes first.

  3. Chris Shepherd

    As a QA friend of mine used to say:
    “never time to do it right, always time to do it twice”

  4. Chris Zeh

    “Oh, foodledoodles” 🙂

    I can’t tell you how many times the Copy/Paste/Edit procedure has foiled me.

    That’s great you found the bug before samples arrived. A bug right after tape-out only turns a few heads, while a dead prototype gets everyone’s attention.

  5. Prototype vs. Simulation | Engineer Blogs

    […] the probability of having zero bugs. First, let’s pull out that rule again I wrote about in The $150,000 Wire: if it’s not simulated, you should assume it’s broken. Also, bug finding is an activity with […]