Full Width [alt+shift+f] Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
1

Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

from Daniel De Laney [alt+shift+b] in technology

Code forces humans to be precise. That’s good. Computers need precision. But it also forces humans to think like machines. For decades we tried to fix this by making programming more human-friendly. Higher-level languages. Visual interfaces. Each step helped, but we were still translating human thoughts into computer instructions. AI was supposed to change everything. Finally, plain English could be a programming language. No syntax. No rules. Just say what you want. The first wave of AI coding tools squandered this opportunity. They make flashy demos but produce garbage software. People call them “great for prototyping,” which means “don’t use this for anything real.” Many blame the AI models, saying we just need them to get smarter. This is wrong. Yes, better AI will make better guesses about what you mean. But when you’re building serious software, you don’t want guesses. Not even smart ones. You want to know exactly what you’re building. Current AI tools pretend writing software is like having a conversation. It’s not. It’s like writing laws. You’re using English, but you’re defining terms, establishing rules, and managing complex interactions between everything you’ve said. Try writing a tax code in chat messages. You can’t. Even simple tax codes are too complex to keep in your head. That’s why we use documents—they let us organize complexity, reference specific points, and track changes systematically. Chat reduces you to memory and hope. This is the core problem. You can’t build real software without being precise about what you want. Every successful programming tool in history reflects this truth. AI briefly fooled us into thinking we could just chat our way to complex software. We can’t. You don’t program by chatting. You program by writing documents. When your intent is in a document instead of scattered across a chat log, English becomes a real programming language: You can see your whole system at once You can clarify and improve your intent You can...
3rd Feb 2025

Stay updated

Get a weekly newsletter with the top 5 articles worth reading every week.

More from Daniel De Laney

Ideal failures

The way I used to design UI was to sit with paper sketches, or Figma, or a React prototype with no back end. Imagine every failure mode. Design beautiful flows for each. I slipped into this mistake while working on LanWhisper, a voice dictation app. I designed for the failure modes I could imagine, drew the flows, and shipped the app. Then real users hit failure modes that I hadn’t anticipated. For example, the AI transcription model can return hallucinated text even if the input audio is empty. I had imagined that if the model returned text at all then the app was working. This failure wasn’t in my carefully designed list of ideal failures. Whoops. The problem is that a representation of a system only contains what you put into it. The failure modes it shows you are exclusively the ones you already thought of. This is the same mistake as designing for users you’ve never talked to. Designers know that’s a trap. The same logic applies to the systems we design: imagined systems aren’t a substitute for real ones. When designing non-trivial systems, imagination is no longer your best source of truth. The system itself is. And increasingly, designers can build it themselves. Do. Build it, instrument it, surface every piece of state. You can see and feel how the system works instead of projecting the ideal behavior onto some drawings you linked together. Your list of ideal failure modes isn’t real.

13th May 2026 • 1 votes
I built a timer I can’t fail to set

Have you ever gotten to the end of a long work day and realized you’re no closer to your goals? I have. Sure, I was doing a lot of stuff. But I wasn’t pausing to ask whether I was doing the right stuff. Or whether my approach was working. Or if I was spending the right amount of time on it. My fingers were moving but I wasn’t really thinking. So I needed a reliable way to interrupt my “unproductive productivity” and actually think. The obvious solution was a timer. Unfortunately, if you use timers a lot, you learn to dismiss them reflexively. And it’s really easy to forget to set the next timer. A week later, I’d realize: “Hey, that timer idea really worked, I should get back to that.” And then I didn’t. So I built a new kind of timer. It does 2 unique things: It asks what I’ll focus on. It gradually blurs my screen if I don’t set a new timer. When it asks “What will you focus on?” I answer in a word or two, start the next timer, and keep working. Having to name my intention keeps me fully aware of my trajectory. If I’m in danger of drifting, it’s obvious. And if I avoid thinking for long enough, my screen starts getting harder to see. If I’m making great progress on something that doesn’t require much thinking, I can set the timer for a longer duration, maybe 30 minutes. But if I’m working on something more open-ended, I might tighten the leash all the way down to 3 minutes. Then I can’t get off track. Unlike a regular timer, I can’t fail to set the next one. If I don’t answer it promptly, the screen gradually becomes less readable until I do. If I wanted to avoid answering, I’d have to make a conscious decision to close the app. I’d have to decide to be less productive. I never do. This small intervention has worked beautifully. Not only am I catching unproductive divergences earlier, I’m noticing fewer of them over time. It seems to be training me to do more and better thinking. It’s not a replacement for a journal. I love journaling, but that takes more than a few seconds, and there’s a lot of benefit to reflecting more frequently. If you’re running macOS, Intention is available here. I use it every day, and I think it’s the superior way of working. Process Tools like Cursor and Claude Code have dramatically changed the way I approach the design process. In the past, I would have sketched some potential solutions, put together a clickable prototype, and user tested that. But how much does that user test actually test? A traditional prototype in Figma or the like is paper-thin. I’m testing much less than the full experience. Now I can sculpt functional software as I go. That means I can build something, really use it, notice opportunities to make it better, and implement the changes I’d like to see, all in the same working session. This fast and robust feedback loop means better software. That said, sketches are still faster. I’ll bounce back and forth between sketching and building as appropriate. It’s far more practical to draw usable imagery than to generate it. The dock icon is drawn by hand in Figma with the pen tool and layer effects. The candle in the dark serves as both a metaphor for the app’s purpose illuminating the way forward, and an allusion to meditative practice. Why does this menu bar application appear in the dock? The answer is in the riddle of keyboard focus. An app that steals my keyboard focus every 3 minutes would be impossible to use, so instead the appearance of the timer window in the top right of the screen gently reminds me, and the gradual blurring of the screen gets more insistent over time. But the app does not take keyboard focus itself. This balance is what makes the app work. So I need a fast and intuitive way to switch to the timer window when I’m ready. Cmd+Tab has to work, and having the app appear in the dock enables that. Inspiration The visual inspiration for the branding is the early 1600s Caravaggio painting Saint Jerome Writing. The aging scholar Jerome, remembering the nearness of death, absorbs himself completely in the most noble work he can find to do while ignoring everything else. This is our task.

2nd Dec 2025 • 1 votes
Free software scares normal people

I’m the person my friends and family come to for computer-related help. (Maybe you, gentle reader, can relate.) This experience has taught me which computing tasks are frustrating for normal people. Normal people often struggle with converting video. They will need to watch, upload, or otherwise do stuff with a video, but the format will be weird. (Weird, broadly defined, is anything that won’t play in QuickTime or upload to Facebook.) I would love to recommend Handbrake to them, but the user interface is by and for power users. Opening it makes normal people feel unpleasant feelings. This problem is rampant in free software. The FOSS world is full of powerful tools that only have a “power user” UI. As a result, people give up. Or worse: they ask people like you and I to do it for them. I want to make the case to you that you can (and should) solve this kind of problem in a single evening. Take the example of Magicbrake, a simple front end I built. It hides the power and flexibility of Handbrake. It does only the one thing most people need Handbrake for: taking a weird video file and making it normal. (Normal, for our purposes, means a small MP4 that works just about anywhere.) There is exactly one button. This is a fast and uncomplicated thing to do. Unfortunately, the people who have the ability to solve problems like this are often disinclined to do it. “Why would you make Handbrake less powerful on purpose?” “What if someone wants a different format?” “What about [feature/edge case]?” The answer to all these questions is the same: a person who needs or wants that stuff can use Handbrake. If they don’t need everything Handbrake can do and find it bewildering, they can use this. Everyone wins. It’s a bit like obscuring the less-used functions on a TV remote with tape. The functions still exist if you need them, but you’re not required to contend with them just to turn the TV on. People benefit from stuff like this, and I challenge you to make more of it. Opportunities are everywhere. The world is full of media servers normal people can’t set up. Free audio editing software that requires hours of learning to be useful for simple tasks. Network monitoring tools that seem designed to ward off the uninitiated. Great stuff normal people don’t use. All because there’s only one UI, and it’s designed to do everything. 80% of the people only need 20% of the features. Hide the rest from them and you’ll make them more productive and happy. That’s really all it takes.

30th Oct 2025 • 1 votes
Objectivity is superstition

An objective, external world is a non-falsifiable assumption. The prevailing theory is that our subjective experiences correspond to an external reality. However, they may simply be subjective through and through. That which we claim to be evidence of external reality is actually subjective experience, which may or may not have an external and objective cause. Any test devised to prove objectivity is evaluated within subjectivity and therefore does not require objectivity to explain the result. Some object to this, claiming that the consistency of experience is best explained by an external world. However, consistent experience does not require any external mechanism, let alone the specific one we have assumed. Claiming that belief in an external world is simpler is like claiming that belief in God is simpler; in truth we are inventing something vast and complex without evidence and agreeing not to question it. This is not science, it is a substitute for epistemic humility. Much as dreams appear consistent while dreaming, that which we consider waking experience may not actually be as consistent as we believe. However, questioning this is unproductive reasoning because it undermines the value of reason itself. We must assume our experiences are rational and consistent, or else give up thinking altogether. Experience is the only reality which is detectable. Whatever experience is, it is real and directly perceptible, unlike objectivity. Claims that experience is an illusion presuppose an objective world to which experience does not correspond. Pragmatic truth is supportable, correspondence is not. If an objective world can’t be proven, neither can we prove that knowledge does or does not correspond with it. That which produces a consistent effect in experience is useful in influencing experience in the desired way, therefore science is useful. Materialism is religious faith. Just as we once invented a spirit world to help explain our experiences, we invented an objective world for which there is similar quality evidence. Both are assumed to explain experience, yet neither is directly known. The assertion that matter gives rise to experience is no more compelling than the assertion that experience gives rise to matter. The assumption of an external world has zero explanatory power, as consistent experience does not require it. Materialism is superior to classical religions in that it responds to pragmatic truth, but it still accepts unsupportable metaphysical claims and regards them as unquestionable. By contrast, noting that we have experiences does not require extrapolation or invention. Modern civilization is optimizing materials, not experiences. Focus on economic metrics has allowed us to make tremendous progress in reducing starvation and otherwise improve the experience of the least fortunate. Nonetheless, the subtle error of conflating material improvement with improvement in well-being has consequences. In advanced societies, increases in abstract indicators of material wealth like GDP have been accompanied by negative changes in consciousness: stress, social disconnection, and increased suicide. The materialist assumption that improving external conditions will always trickle down to better experiences is demonstrably unreliable. Often, this assumption results in methods which improve economic indicators by reducing experiential well-being, and in these cases it is worse than nothing. In addition to misallocating its priorities, modern civilization also conditions people to feel powerless over their own well-being. As materialist structures (corporations, governments, economic systems) become more dominant, individuals are increasingly absorbed into mechanisms designed to optimize external conditions rather than subjective experience. People come to believe that their quality of life is dictated by forces beyond their control. The best way to improve experience is to optimize it directly. The only rational goal is maximizing satisfaction. Long-term positive changes in consciousness are what is best in life. If a person achieves material or hedonistic aims but is unsatisfied in the long term, they are having a negative experience and are working against themselves. Secure, nourish, nurture, and build yourself and your community. Seek what is satisfying and aesthetic—that which feels good and true and beautiful. Unlike materialist assumptions, this requires no external faith, only a direct commitment to improving the reality we actually experience.

17th Mar 2025 • 1 votes

More in technology

Inside a 1980s filter chip that uses switched capacitors

Sometimes it's easier to identify an IC with a microscope. While sorting a box of old ICs, CuriousMarc came across some Harris ICs labeled "F1-10-5", a mysterious part number that didn't show up in any databooks. Since unidentifiable ICs are useless, he gave me one to analyze. Conveniently, it was in a ceramic package, so I could open it up with a quick tap from a chisel. Under the microscope, the chip's most striking feature was a grid of square capacitors. With all those capacitors, I guessed that it was a switched-capacitor filter. The die provided another clue: the part number HF-10. With this information, we quickly found that the chip was Harris's version of the standard MF10 switched-capacitor filter chip.1 The Harris integrated circuit, labeled F1-10-5 (or maybe FI-10-5), with a 1985 date code. Photo courtesy of CuriousMarc. Switched-capacitor filters were a popular way to implement analog filters in the 1980s. Rapidly switching capacitors in and out of a circuit enabled the construction of single-chip filters that were easy to use and performed well. The MF10, introduced by National Semiconductor in 1981, provides two flexible filters on a chip; each filter acts as a low-pass filter, band-pass filter, or a high-pass filter. The filter's characteristics are simple to control with a few external resistors. The Harris HF-10 die under the microscope with the main functional blocks labeled. (Click for a larger image.) Since I had the chip under the microscope, I took the opportunity to analyze it more closely. The white lines are the metal wiring that connects the chip's circuitry. Under the metal layer are two layers of polysilicon (reddish) and the underlying silicon (gray). The top and bottom halves of the chip are mostly mirror images, corresponding to the chip's two filters. The distinctive reddish squares in the middle of the chip are 72 tiny capacitors, constructed from polysilicon. Above the capacitors, CMOS switches turn on and off at the clock frequency, switching capacitors in and out of the circuit. Each filter uses three operational amplifiers (op amps), outlined in red. At the right are the three outputs from the three op amps: high pass, band pass, and low pass. The control circuitry is on the left: clock level shifting, clock shaping, frequency ratio handling, startup circuitry, and current sinks to provide fixed currents to other parts of the chip. Around the edges of the silicon die, 20 hair-thin bond wires connect the die to its 20 external pins. The die has some interesting chip art: a Harris logo and an outline of Florida; Harris was headquartered in Melbourne, Florida. The initials on the die are presumably the engineers who designed the chip. Some interesting images from the die. Switched capacitor circuits The filter is based on switched-capacitor circuits. A switched capacitor can replace a resistor in certain circuits, as shown below. The switches are controlled by a clock signal; the switches alternately close in clock phase 1 and phase 2 (ϕ1 and ϕ2). In phase 1, the capacitor is charged to the input voltage. In phase 2, the capacitor passes charge to the output. By rapidly toggling the switches, charge is (almost) steadily passed to the output. The larger the capacitance, the more charge that is passed through. Likewise, a higher frequency passes more charge. It can be shown that the circuit matches a resistor with resistance of 1/(fC): a higher capacitance and frequency correspond to lower resistance. A switched capacitor can replace a resistor. Why would you replace a simple resistor with this complicated switching circuit? In an integrated circuit, resistors are inaccurate and inconveniently large, especially high-value resistors. Replacing a large resistor with a small capacitor saves space on the die. Moreover, it is easy to generate an extremely accurate clock frequency with an inexpensive quartz crystal, making the filter's frequency highly accurate. Finally, the equivalent resistance can be changed simply by changing the clock frequency, making it easy to tune or sweep the filter. On-chip capacitors are fairly inaccurate, with the capacitance typically varying by 20% from chip to chip due to variations in manufacturing conditions. However, this isn't a problem in the MF10 because the circuitry was designed to depend on the ratio between capacitances, which is stable. Specifically, the MF10 uses 72 identical square capacitors, which will have almost identical capacitances. Careful examination shows that some of the capacitors are separate, while others are connected in groups of 8 to form larger capacitors.2 This yields a highly accurate ratio of 8:1 between the grouped capacitors and the individual capacitors, even though the absolute capacitance will vary from chip to chip. Each capacitor is constructed from two layers of polysilicon,3 forming the plates of the capacitor, separated by a thin layer of insulating oxide that acts as the dielectric. I estimate that each capacitor square is 5 picofarads. The grid of capacitors in the MF10. I've added yellow lines to show how the capacitors are grouped. The switches are above and below the capacitors. This chip uses one more trick with switched capacitors: it inverts the voltage while acting as a resistor. In the switched-capacitor circuit below, there are four switches. The capacitor charges to the input voltage during phase 1, the same as before. But duing phase 2, note that the top plate of the capacitor is grounded, while the output comes from the bottom plate. If the capacitor was charged to, say, 1 volt, the top plate is 1 volt above the bottom plate. So if the top plate is grounded, then the bottom plate must be at -1 V. (This is the same idea as a charge pump.) This circuit turns out to yield a more accurate filter because some parasitic capacitances cancel out. By using four switches, the switched capacitor can invert the voltage. The op-amp integrator The heart of most analog circuits is the operational amplifier, or op-amp. An op-amp takes two inputs and amplifies the difference by many orders of magnitude. Normally, an op-amp is configured with negative feedback, which forces the two inputs to be essentially the same. Op-amps are useful not only for amplification, but for filtering, buffering, summing, and other tasks. A basic op-amp integrator. The filter chip uses op-amps as integrators, to integrate an input voltage over time. The circuit above shows a simple op-amp integrator. The input voltage produces a current that flows through the resistor and charges the capacitor, so the capacitor holds the integral of the input voltage over time. You might expect that the left side of the capacitor would become positive as it charges. However, the op-amp's feedback forces both inputs to ground, so instead the right side of the capacitor becomes negative. Thus, the output is the negative integral.4 The MF10 chip uses the circuit above, except the resistor is replaced with a switched capacitor. The capacitor across the op-amp is not switched, but consists of either 8 or 16 capacitors from the capacitor grid. The CMOS switches The CMOS switch is the technology that makes the switched-capacitor filter possible. A CMOS switch has a fairly low resistance (maybe tens of ohms) when closed and an enormously high resistance (hundreds of megohms) when open. This high resistance ensures that the charge doesn't leak out of the capacitors. A CMOS switch is constructed by combining an NMOS transistor and a PMOS transistor. The NMOS transistor and PMOS transistor are opposites. An NMOS transistor is good at pulling the output low, while a PMOS transistor is good at pulling the output high, so in combination they provide an effective switch. An NMOS transistor is turned on by a high voltage on the gate, while a PMOS transistor is turned on by a low voltage on the gate. Thus, a CMOS switch requires two control signals of opposite polarity, which is a minor inconvenience. A CMOS switch. The diagram above shows how a switch is implemented with an NMOS transistor and a PMOS transistor in parallel. When the control line is high, and the inverted control line is low, both transistors turn on, providing a path through the switch circuit. When the control line is low (and the inverted line high), the transistors turn off, opening the switch. The chip uses CMOS switches in pairs, with one switch on and the other off. This forms the equivalent of a toggle switch that connects either A or B to the output. This circuit is simply two CMOS switches, with separate control lines for each switch, as shown below. In the MF10, the switch toggles at the clock frequency. During one clock phase, the switch is connected to A, while the switch is connected to B during the other clock phase. The schematic on the right, below, is the same circuit, but reorganized to match the layout on the die. A double-throw CMOS switch. The photo below shows a CMOS switch on the die, constructed from two PMOS transistors and two NMOS transistors. The four control lines run horizontally in polysilicon, forming a transistor gate where they cross doped silicon. The upper PMOS and NMOS transistors are driven by the clock phase 1 (Φ1) signals, while the lower transistors are driven by the phase 2 signals. CMOS switches on the die. The metal layer was removed to show the transistors. One problem with switched-capacitor filters is that the clock can generate switching noise that appears in the chip's outputs. The MF10 uses several techniques to reduce clock noise. Each set of transistors is surrounded by two isolation rings: one positive and one negative. These block noise from traveling through the silicon substrate. Note that the rings have opposite polarity for the NMOS transistors and the PMOS transistors. The light tan region in the photo above is a second layer of polysilicon. This polysilicon is connected to ground, providing a shield layer over the switching circuits. For the photo above, I removed the metal layer with acid5 to make the transistors more visible. The photo below shows the original die, with the metal layer connecting the transistors. The small black circles are connections between the metal layer and silicon or polysilicon. The same CMOS switches, showing the metal layer. Putting it together: the state variable filter There are many ways of creating a filter. The MF10 chip uses a technique called the state variable filter, invented in 1967. This circuit acts as three filters, with high-pass, band-pass, and low-pass outputs. Moreover, the circuit is flexible since the frequency, the gain, and the filter quality (Q) can be varied independently. It uses three op-amps: one to sum signals and two for integration. By changing how the values are summed, the characteristics of the filters can be changed. The diagram below shows a simplified representation of a state variable filter. The mathematics behind a state variable filter is complicated, so I won't get into it. In short, the signal, the integral, and the double integral form the three state variables that define the state of the system. Simplified diagram of a state variable filter, with two integrators. Inspired by North Coast Synthesis. The block diagram below shows how the filter is represented in the MF10 datasheet.6 The diagram is similar to the diagram above, with three op-amps. However, the summing circuitry has been separated out. Moreover, the feedback paths are not shown explictly. Instead, resistors are connected between the chip's external pins (squares) to configure the filter as desired. The mode switch at the top allows the low-pass feedback to be controlled by an external pin (SA/B). Block diagram of one of the filter sections. Adapted from the datasheet. The schematic below is my reverse-engineered schematic of the filter, as implemented on the chip. It closely matches the block diagram, but fills in the details. In the block diagram, the summing circuit (circle) adds one signal and subtracts two signals. This summing circuit is implemented with the three switched capacitors on the left, which act as summing resistors. Note that one switch is grounded during phase 1, while the others are grounded during phase 2; switching the polarity implements addition versus subtraction. The top sum input is either feedback from the low-pass output or ground, selected by an input pin. A CMOS switch is used here, but the switch is static, not clocked, so it doesn't use protection rings and shielding like the other switches. My reverse-engineered schematic of one of the filters. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version. The integrators have switched capacitors on the inputs, acting as resistors. The integration capacitor is either 8 or 16 "squares" of capacitance, selected by a ratio selection pin. This controls the ratio between the clock frequency and the filter frequency, either 50:1 or 100:1.7 Although the integration capacitors are attached to a CMOS switch, the switch is static, so the capacitors act as regular capacitors, not switched capacitors. The op-amps The op-amps are fairly standard CMOS op-amps, built from about 35 transistors. (You might get a lower count if you try counting the transistors below, since some of the blocks are multiple transistors.) The op-amp transistors are much larger than the CMOS switch transistors (very bottom, center). On the die, each op-amp is split into two parts: the differential amplifier on the left and an additional amplification stage on the right. A large capacitor (pinkish) sits between the halves. My first thought was that this was the integration capacitor, but it is just a frequency compensation capacitor, common in many op-amps to stabilize the output. The op-amps also have large transistors next to the output pins; these transistors are functionally part of the op-amps, but located next to the pins to minimize resistance. One of the chip's op-amps. I removed the metal layer to make the transistors visible. One unusual feature of the op-amps is a low-power mode. Pulling a particular IC pin low causes the chip to stop filtering and enter a low-power mode, reducing power consumption by 70%. This is implemented by shutting down the "current mirror" circuits that provide fixed currents to the op-amps and other parts of the chip. The non-overlapping clock generator The MF10 chip is driven by external clock signals, one for each filter, with the frequency of the filter proportional to the clock frequency. The photo of the CMOS switches earlier showed that the clock drives four control lines for the switches. You might think that two control lines would be sufficient: the clock and the inverted clock. The problem is that it is very important to avoid having both switches closed at the same time, even for a moment, as that will short the inputs and corrupt the signals. Instead, the two switches have separate control lines that enforce a small gap between when one switch opens and the other one closes. This is implemented with the circuit below that takes an input clock signal and produces the four outputs that drive the switches. The circuit to generate non-overlapping clock signals. There is a delay between when gate A or B turns on and when the corresponding output changes. The idea behind the circuit is that a phase is blocked from going high until after the other phase goes low, with a pair of inverters providing additional delay. In more detail, suppose the input clock drops from high to low. Gate A will turn off, causing the phase 1 output (ϕ1) to drop after a few gate delays (A delay). Gate B can't turn on until ϕ1 goes low. After additional gate delays, ϕ2 goes high. The behavior is similar when the input clock goes high. Gate B turns off, causing ϕ2 to go low after a delay. This allows gate A to turn on, turning on ϕ1 after more delay. To summarize, after a phase is turned off, there is a delay before the other phase turns on, so the two phases never overlap. The clock-shaping circuitry is implemented with CMOS logic gates. The photo above shows this circuitry under the microscope, with the metal layer removed. The rectangular blocks are doped silicon that forms transistors. The darker regions on the left are NMOS transistors and the lighter regions on the right are PMOS transistors. A CMOS gate consists of NMOS and PMOS transistors working together. The PMOS transistors are larger because PMOS transistors are slightly less efficient than NMOS transistors. The dark circles are contacts between the silicon and the metal layer on top. The copper-colored lines are not metal but a special type of silicon called polysilicon. When a polysilicon line crosses doped silicon, it forms the gate of a transistor. The pinks and greens are due to thin-film interference from a thin layer of oxide that didn't completely dissolve; the silicon is actually gray. The ternary input A weird feature of the chip is the input pin that selects the ratio between the input clock and the filter frequency. In effect, this is a digital input with three values. Tying the pin to the high supply voltage selects a 50:1 ratio. Tying the pin to the midpoint between the supply voltages selects a 100:1 ratio. Pulling the pin to the low supply voltage stops the filter and puts the chip into a low-power mode.8 To handle the three-level input, the input goes through two separate buffers, one that transitions at a lower voltage and one that transitions at a higher voltage. Thus, the two buffers separate the middle signal level. Each buffer consists of a special inverter feeding into a regular inverter. Before explaining the special inverters, I'll review how a regular CMOS inverter works. A CMOS inverter is constructed from a PMOS transistor and an NMOS transistor. When the input is high, the NMOS transistor turns on and pulls the output to ground. When the input is low, the PMOS transistor turns on and pulls the output high. Thus, the input signal is inverted. A CMOS inverter is constructed from a PMOS transistor and an NMOS transistor. In the die photo, you can see the four PMOS transistors (light gray) and four NMOS transistors (darker), forming four inverters. When a polysilicon line (copper-colored) crosses a doped silicon region, it forms the gate of a transistor. For this picture, I dissolved the metal layer in acid so the transistors are visible. The metal layer connected the transistors to complete the wiring of the inverters: it connects the two "out1" contacts to "in2" and connects the two "out2" contacts to the rest of the chip. For the second buffer, "out3" connects to "in4" and so forth. The four inverters that handle the ternary input. I flipped the image to make the orientation better. In this circuit, the length of the transistor gates is varied to make the inverters activate at different voltage levels. Six of the transistor gates are normal (orange arrows); the PMOS gates are wider (in the vertical direction) than the NMOS gates because PMOS transistors are inherently weaker. However, two of the transistor gates are unusually long (horizontal direction, red), making the transistors weak since the current must travel a longer distance. The inverter on the left has a weak PMOS transistor. If the input is high or low, the inverter will operate normally. But if the input is in the middle, both transistors will partially turn on. Since the PMOS transistor is very weak, the NMOS transistor will "win", pulling the output low. Thus, the leftmost inverter treats a medium-level input as a 1, outputting a 0. The third inverter is the opposite; the NMOS transistor has a long, winding gate, so it is weak. In this case, a medium-level input will partially turn on both transistors, but the PMOS transistor will "win", pulling the output high. To summarize, the two inverters have opposite behavior for a middle-level signal, allowing the three input levels to be distinguished. Since the output from a special inverter may be weak, the output goes to a normal inverter to amplify the signal. Conclusions Like most semiconductor companies, Harris has a complicated history. Harris started way back in 1895 as a printing press company. Harris moved into high technology in the 1950s and 1960s, acquiring various radio and electronics companies. In particular, Harris entered the IC business in 1967, when it acquired Radiation, Inc., renaming it Harris Semiconductor a few years later. (We've encountered some Radiation modules in Apollo systems, but I haven't written about them yet.) Harris got out of the semiconductor business in 1999, spinning off Intersil, which was later acquired by the Japanese semiconductor firm Renesas. In 2019, Harris merged with L3 Technologies to become L3Harris, the eighth-largest defense contractor in the US. As for switched-capacitor filters, they have lost popularity as filtering is now more easily done in the digital domain. Texas Instruments acquired National Semiconductor (and the MF10) in 2011; TI's website shows the MF10 as active but expensive and out of stock, so it's probably no longer being manufactured. State variable filters are still used in the synthesizer world both because of their flexibility and because they provide low-pass, band-pass, and high-pass filters in one unit. For more, follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com), Mastodon (@[email protected]), or RSS. Thanks to CuriousMarc for providing the IC. AI statement: Despite the presence of the em dash, no AI was used in the writing of this article (details). Notes and references Once we found the "HF-10" part number, a search turned up a National Semiconductor databook that confirmed that the Harris HF-10 was a direct replacement for the National Semiconductor MF10. It remains a mystery why the Harris chip is externally labeled "F1-10-5" rather than "HF-10". This format doesn't resemble other Harris part numbers. I would suspect a military part number, but it is completely different from the military formats that I've seen on other chips, such as JM38510 numbers or NSN numbers. ↩ You might wonder why the larger capacitors are formed by connecting eight smaller capacitor squares, rather than making one capacitor that is eight times as big. The reason is to get better matching between the two capacitor sizes. A capacitor that is eight times as large won't have exactly eight times the capacitance due to factors such as the behavior of the electric field around the edge of the capacitor, inaccuracies that may make the capacitor slightly larger or smaller than desired, or etching variability around the edges. By building larger capacitors out of identical smaller capacitors, the values can match very well, up to ±0.01% according to The Art of Analog Layout. (With laser trimming, matching of ±0.001% is possible, but that is much more accuracy than the MF10 required.) ↩ Most chips from this era have a single layer of polysilicon, so I was surprised to find two layers in this chip. I've seen two layers of polysilicon before, in the MK4116 DRAM chip and AMD's LANCE Ethernet chip. In both cases, the second layer of polysilicon was used for storage devices. ↩ A standard op-amp integrator is an inverting integrator, and the output is negative. However, the MF10 uses the four-switch switched capacitor that inverts the input voltage. The two negatives cancel out, so the MF-10's integrator is a non-inverting integrator. See Introducing the MF10: A Versatile Monolithic Active Filter Building Block for details. ↩ To remove the metal layer, I used Whink rust stain remover (1.5-3.5% HF) to remove the oxide layer and hydrochloric acid to dissolve the metal. I applied Whink for 20 minutes and HCl for 16 minutes in total. I alternated each chemical for about 3 minutes each, applying a few drops at a time. I examined the die under the microscope after each application to gauge the progress. I stopped at this point since the metal was removed and the underlying transistors were visible. Moreover, the silicon became differentially stained, with NMOS transistors significantly darker than PMOS transistors. Some more Whink would probably improve the appearance of the die, but the risk is that the polysilicon might get removed, which would be bad for reverse engineering. In other words, I'd rather stop too early than destroy the features that I want to see. ↩ For reference, the full block diagram of the chip is below, from the datasheet. Block diagram of the MF10 from the Texas Instruments datasheet.  ↩ The filter frequency of the MF10 can be set to either the clock frequency divided by 50 or divided by 100. You might wonder where these ratios come from, since the capacitors on the chip are in 8:1 or 16:1 ratios, not 50:1 or 100:1. The formula for a switched-capacitor integrator is that the filter frequency is the clock frequency divided by 2π times the capacitor ratio. (This can be derived from the op-amp integrator formula and the equivalent resistance of a switched capacitor.) It turns out 2π×8 is 50.27 and 2π×16 is 100.5, providing the 50 and 100 values. Note that these values aren't exactly 50 and 100; they are off by 0.5%. Curiously, the datasheet specifies that the typical frequency error is ±0.2%, significantly smaller. I suspect that the explanation is that the capacitor ratio is not precisely 16:1, due to stray capacitance in the wiring and other factors, and the designers ensured that these factors tweaked the ratio in the desired direction. ↩ I suspect that the ternary input pin was used because the chip didn't have enough physical pins for all the functions they wanted. Note that the two filters are entirely independent, even with separate clocks, except for the 50/100 ratio control and the A/B mode control. I'm sure that these two functions would have independent control pins if the chip had pins available. They could have used a standard 24-pin package for the chip rather than the somewhat unusual 20-pin package, but maybe they had a motivation for avoiding a much larger 24-pin package. ↩

18 hours ago • 1 votes
Radxa's Q8B has 2x the performance and expansion of the Pi 5

There was a time I'd look at a board like the Radxa Dragon Q8B (at left, above) and be like, "there's no way I'd spend $209 on an SBC with 8 gigs of RAM". But we're in 2026, and seeing the 8 gig Raspberry Pi 5 going for almost the same amount, I figured I'd give it a shot. On paper, the Q8B beats the Pi 5 in pretty much every way. A lot of that is thanks to this Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 chip, which is the same chip I tested on Microsoft's Windows Dev Kit 2023.

2 days ago • 1 votes
Three years later

Reflections on October 7th

3 days ago • 1 votes
The Sting

The Sting belongs in the pantheon of films I'm deeply embarrassed to have not watched earlier. Not just because it's a great film — and it is — but because it is so incredibly my shit that I feel retroactively spurned for not having watched it sooner.

3 days ago • 1 votes
It's a Gas!

If everything worked as well as the product called Evapo-Rust, the world would be a much better place. That’s just one of the many lessons learned during my recent — successful! — project to transform my old, nonfunctioning gasoline-powered generator into something much better.

4 days ago • 1 votes
📚 BoredReading

You seem to be enjoying this.

Join free to unlock everything.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in