Dave, you're not asking too much. It is just that you're competing for a person who can be better paid and wouldn't want to work as a lab assistant. These skillsets are there, but you will need to compensate them accordingly. It is not a question about your requirements can be considered a basic skillset - it is the pressure of the market that will determine whether you will find someone or not.
Hell, the reality is that (atleast in the US colleges) majority engineers who graduate with a Bachelors in EE do not have the "basic" skillset you have listed. This has been my experience in a IV league college in America. Not kidding.
I truly hope you find someone who is passionate and willing to work for a lower wage and in a fun environment.
Cheers and my two cents. I apologize if it was harsh.
This has been my experience in a IV league college in America.Are the IV league colleges on life support? ;D
HOURLY RATES Freshman/Sophomore Junior/Senior Graduate
Course/Lab Assistant $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Tutoring Program $11.00 $12.00 $13.00
Problem Grader $10.00 $11.00 $12.00
General Helper $9.75 $9.75 $9.75
I don't think anyone said that some "hobbyists" don't have the skills you listed. You missed the point.
As a side note, I don't think you're going to find that skill set in a student. I can't speak for Universities in Australia, but in the States, it's common for a EE grad to have very little hands on experience. I see a whole lot of student's senior projects made with stuff cobbled together from Sparkfun - all hooked up with jumper wires.
And if you do find a student, then perhaps they could do a summer internship, but a full course load and working up to 30 hours a week? That's slim pickings. But....Maybe if they are required to an internship as part of their studies, then that would work. But that's going to be even harder to find. Why don't you go to someone of the local universities and ask? Surely they would need to 'vet you before they can sign off on you being part of their education. They may even underwrite the whole thing. (Also, they usually have job boards you can post on) - that would be where I would start.
Anyways, there some helpful suggestions for you.
So that leaves you with an advanced "hobbyist". If you can find someone with the skill set you listed, doesn't need money, then more power to you I guess. :-\ (ya cheap bastard!)
Maybe the job title should be "Wanted: Nerd that lives with his parents, doesn't smell too much, won't take up my time, and willing to work for peanuts." :-DD
I don't think anyone said that some "hobbyists" don't have the skills you listed. You missed the point.
As a side note, I don't think you're going to find that skill set in a student. I can't speak for Universities in Australia, but in the States, it's common for a EE grad to have very little hands on experience. I see a whole lot of student's senior projects made with stuff cobbled together from Sparkfun - all hooked up with jumper wires.
And if you do find a student, then perhaps they could do a summer internship, but a full course load and working up to 30 hours a week? That's slim pickings. But....Maybe if they are required to an internship as part of their studies, then that would work. But that's going to be even harder to find. Why don't you go to someone of the local universities and ask? Surely they would need to 'vet you before they can sign off on you being part of their education. They may even underwrite the whole thing. (Also, they usually have job boards you can post on) - that would be where I would start.
Anyways, there some helpful suggestions for you.
So that leaves you with an advanced "hobbyist". If you can find someone with the skill set you listed, doesn't need money, then more power to you I guess. :-\ (ya cheap bastard!)
Maybe the job title should be "Wanted: Nerd that lives with his parents, doesn't smell too much, won't take up my time, and willing to work for peanuts." :-DD
I knew more about "electronics" before I enrolled in Uni...
Now I know a lot about control theory and math...
Dave,
I certainly don't think you are asking to much at all,
Lists all the things you mention, so yes, I am living proof that we do exist and we are even in Australia!
So no, I understand exactly what you are after!
Dave,
I certainly don't think you are asking to much at all,
Lists all the things you mention, so yes, I am living proof that we do exist and we are even in Australia!
So no, I understand exactly what you are after!
I hope your name is Sydney :-DD and you have put your hat in the ring. :-+
In my own case. I was an EE student but switched to CompSci my SENIOR year. It was the mid 80's and I simply decided that I liked all the new exciting computer stuff more. I don't regret that decision, the 80s, 90s, and first decade of the 2000's were exciting times in IT and provided a very interesting career.
It was actually a little heart breaking to discover nobody had any passion at all in this field when commencing university level studies
On the ZXSpectrum childhood vs Iphone childhood - i can't help but notice that it's a problem that teaches, not capability.
Few things motivate a child to learn about electronics better than a broken game console and a desire to play on it. :)
What can break in an Iphone? :-//
Dave, perhaps instead of searching for a small lamb/sheep with 7 legs already standing on all 7 of them, start looking for an eager one with 4 reasonable legs willing to learn to grow the other 3 ones.
If you want someone who already has all the experience what is he going to learn from you? How to connect a BTTF timeclock with the wrong polarity? Just kidding ;) .
You want an eager smart apprentice, so look for one who fits 60% of what you asked and teach him the other 40% on the job. At least it will be more balanced.
The role is expected to be quite fluid based on your skillset.But in reality basic electronics design it's pretty much an all or nothing skillset. i.e. someone who can design a decent circuit will almost certainly have skills in laying out a board and building and testing. You are unlikely to find someone who can test and troubleshoot and lay out boards, but can't design basic building block circuits for example.
Who's said I would not consider that? I thought my job description implied that anyway?
At this moment, Dave, I'm afraid you might get into a loooo...ooong search for an assistant.
Just to repeat what everyone else already told: I believe that there should be students fitting your requirements, too.
I think it is reasonable to expect the range of skills stated from someone with interest and enthusiasm for electronics, but maybe not from someone that started college with no electronics at all, unless they've become interested enough to learn stuff outside of their college course.Mike has hit the nail on the head, it's all about enthusiasm!
By far the most important thing is enthusiasm and ability to learn on their own. There is no shortage of learning materials nowadays, and hardware is cheap and available.
At this moment, Dave, I'm afraid you might get into a loooo...ooong search for an assistant.
Well, seems you are wrong. I already have at least a couple of local decent sounding candidates, and have a another half dozen resumes I haven't looked at yet.
And a couple of decent sounding overseas candidates if I was getting desperate (I prefer local).
Of course it might all come to naught come interview time, but they sound decent on paper.
Mike has hit the nail on the head, it's all about enthusiasm!
Personally when looking at skills on a Job application I tend to assume that I would be required to be proficient in them all.
I agree, not many but a few.
On the ZXSpectrum childhood vs Iphone childhood - i can't help but notice that it's a problem that teaches, not capability.
Few things motivate a child to learn about electronics better than a broken game console and a desire to play on it. :)
What can break in an Iphone? :-//
Certainly that's not too much to ask. On the other hand though, I have many friends who are 4th year EE students who I wouldn't trust with the probes of a multimeter if you told them where to put 'em. I also know many people with the skills you mentioned and would love such an opportunity whether it payed or not.
Because if someone already has all these skills, nowadays the people also know, what it's worth.. and you did not even specify the hourly wage, you old CHEAPSKATE!
But here is the bottom line - do you really think the skills listed above should pay less then a sign flipper on a road crew?
Dave, I'm afraid you might get into a loooo...ooong search for an assistant. The reason is, people with the level you require are already into business, those who might be willing to get this job are mostly young and unprepared :palm:
Dave, perhaps instead of searching for a small lamb/sheep with 7 legs....
You want an eager smart apprentice, so look for one who fits 60% of what you asked and teach him the other 40% on the job. At least it will be more balanced.
I don't know what it's like in Aus, but in the UK the level of what they spit out of Uni these days is diabolical!
You do get SOME that are worth more than given credit for, but from my own experience they are very few and far between. I.E. I don't consider getting a Arduino or RPi to blink an LED becoming a "EE", it's definitely a start but most stop there as it is "too difficult".
LOL - apparently we are all in an alternative realty!!!! :scared:
The only thing we learned is that Dave is a cheap ass. :-DD But - he says that about himself all the time. So - Nothing learned here! Rock on with your bad self!
Dave, you'll find some one, I'm sure of it. Finding someone that meets your specs(kinda of), and you "click" with them for the first week - it will be awesome. A true bro-mance. Put them on camera too. But the first time you can't get to a scope cause they are using it to measure voltage of a 9 volt battery, you'll quietly fire their ass. :-DD Time will tell. Let's check in on this from a year from now. Anyone want to place bets? O0
..of course another option may be someone at the other end of the age spectrum - retired engineer looking for more casual work.
..of course another option may be someone at the other end of the age spectrum - retired engineer looking for more casual work.
I don't know what it's like in Aus, but in the UK the level of what they spit out of Uni these days is diabolical!
You do get SOME that are worth more than given credit for, but from my own experience they are very few and far between. I.E. I don't consider getting a Arduino or RPi to blink an LED becoming a "EE", it's definitely a start but most stop there as it is "too difficult".
That's always been the case - no change there.
I can vouch for that for the last 40 years, and 40 years ago people were saying exactly the same thing. And in 40 years time they will still be saying it.
I don't know what it's like in Aus, but in the UK the level of what they spit out of Uni these days is diabolical!
You do get SOME that are worth more than given credit for, but from my own experience they are very few and far between. I.E. I don't consider getting a Arduino or RPi to blink an LED becoming a "EE", it's definitely a start but most stop there as it is "too difficult".
That's always been the case - no change there.
I can vouch for that for the last 40 years, and 40 years ago people were saying exactly the same thing. And in 40 years time they will still be saying it.
Maybe, but at least in previous years you didn't have it so easy to buy ready made stuff off of the shelf, and PCB's were so damned expensive that you would never even consider getting one made for hobbyist use (hence why I started PCB designer later in life).
I remember programming a 6502 in assembler and actually enjoying it, at the time you didn't have hundreds of resources or the internet, you had a book on 6502 assembly language and a keyboard and screen.
It made you appreciate the way the machines worked and get involved with the hardware more.
Everything these days is virtual, but still run on real hardware, it splits the need to understand the real guts from the virtualised rubbish they run on top of it.
My worry is that in a few years time there will be no real "engineers" as such, just monkeys playing with virtual machines and Arduinos.
I don't think you are asking too much from a hobbiest, Dave.
On the contrary I was shocked to learn, that some see this skillset as a match for a professional engineer.
..of course another option may be someone at the other end of the age spectrum - retired engineer looking for more casual work.that needs an almost perfect match in personalities. You could get an ego clash or the "we did it like this for 20 years and I am not going to change that" mentality but it could work all depends on the person.
You must be slightly older than I am to have experienced the old paper tape days!
Oh, that was luxury :)
The first computer I programmed didn't have a screen. I/O was via 5 channel paper tape, the fastest instruction was 0.576ms,and it had 35mm magnetic film and 8192 words of 39 bit memory (N.B no typos there). Must go and see it exhibited in Bletchley Park.
The first 6502 I specified professionally used me as the hand assembler, and I/O was via a hex keypad and 7 segment displays. That machine was the start of a great empire. viz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_System_1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_System_1)QuoteEverything these days is virtual, but still run on real hardware, it splits the need to understand the real guts from the virtualised rubbish they run on top of it.
My worry is that in a few years time there will be no real "engineers" as such, just monkeys playing with virtual machines and Arduinos.
There I disagree - the Arduino et al are a good approximation to bare silicon, and are a very good starting point for kids.
Besides, nowadays the interesting field is bio-hacking. Guess what script kiddies will be hacking in 30 years :(
I'm a software engineer, and I do come across dozens of people with software degrees who couldn't design an application to save their lives. I've done interviews with "software engineers" who were unable to draw a UML class diagram. (For all the hardware peeps out there, that's kind of like an EE not remembering the symbol for a resistor.) So yes, the idiots are out there.
I'm a software engineer, and I do come across dozens of people with software degrees who couldn't design an application to save their lives. I've done interviews with "software engineers" who were unable to draw a UML class diagram. (For all the hardware peeps out there, that's kind of like an EE not remembering the symbol for a resistor.) So yes, the idiots are out there.
Hmm. I doubt I'd get far drawing a UML diagram, without being able to look it up. I mean, I've *seen* UML, but I've never used it in over 30 years of writing / designing software so I doubt I'd be able to produce anything coherent from memory. And I have a degree, but that pre-dates UML...
Does that make me an idiot?
Hmm. I doubt I'd get far drawing a UML diagram, without being able to look it up. I mean, I've *seen* UML, but I've never used it in over 30 years of writing / designing software so I doubt I'd be able to produce anything coherent from memory. And I have a degree, but that pre-dates UML...I have no idea about the exact field you are in. For the sort of job - enterprise application design - I've interviewed that guy, knowing basic UML was a prerequisite.
Does that make me an idiot?
I was going to ask the same thing, I"m not given the time to document my code let alone create a diagram. I also started when I was 8 and was writing 6502 (and later 8086) assembly code by the time I was 12. Does it make me an idiot that I don't create UML diagrams. People need to watch what they say.But would you be able to? Class diagrams are not rocket science. ;)
Not quite the same as forgetting a resistor symbol.
I did software engineering and I never had to touch UML at college.
I have used it but I find it of not much benefit to use it explicitly.
I tend to do most things modularly, or at least split things into functions if it is not OO (like in C), and I will sketch if the function is particularly tricky what the inputs and outputs should be and do basic calcs depending on what the function / class does.
I've written software (quite a lot of) embedded and desktop and some web for the last 20 or so years and I have never had to do much more than a simple brain storm for some of the more trickier pieces of code.
Some people can get lost in UML and end up spending 2 years designing a system without writing a single piece of code, and then the project gets cancelled because it's taking too long.
Hmm. I doubt I'd get far drawing a UML diagram, without being able to look it up. I mean, I've *seen* UML, but I've never used it in over 30 years of writing / designing software so I doubt I'd be able to produce anything coherent from memory. And I have a degree, but that pre-dates UML...I have no idea about the exact field you are in. For the sort of job - enterprise application design - I've interviewed that guy, knowing basic UML was a prerequisite.
Does that make me an idiot?
I can think of fields where you never draw a single class diagram ever, but they are shrinking. Communicating with fellow humans about the design is just as important as getting the design done. ;)I was going to ask the same thing, I"m not given the time to document my code let alone create a diagram. I also started when I was 8 and was writing 6502 (and later 8086) assembly code by the time I was 12. Does it make me an idiot that I don't create UML diagrams. People need to watch what they say.But would you be able to? Class diagrams are not rocket science. ;)
BTW to answer your question, it doesn't make you an idiot. It makes your boss one. ;)
Hmm. I doubt I'd get far drawing a UML diagram, without being able to look it up. I mean, I've *seen* UML, but I've never used it in over 30 years of writing / designing software so I doubt I'd be able to produce anything coherent from memory. And I have a degree, but that pre-dates UML...I have no idea about the exact field you are in. For the sort of job - enterprise application design - I've interviewed that guy, knowing basic UML was a prerequisite.
Does that make me an idiot?
I can think of fields where you never draw a single class diagram ever, but they are shrinking. Communicating with fellow humans about the design is just as important as getting the design done. ;)I was going to ask the same thing, I"m not given the time to document my code let alone create a diagram. I also started when I was 8 and was writing 6502 (and later 8086) assembly code by the time I was 12. Does it make me an idiot that I don't create UML diagrams. People need to watch what they say.But would you be able to? Class diagrams are not rocket science. ;)
BTW to answer your question, it doesn't make you an idiot. It makes your boss one. ;)
80% of people calling themselves software developers are useless.
That said I've written plenty of UML documentation and even if someone knows how to create class diagrams most don't know how to do interaction, state or activity diagrams.Which is why I'm a bit taken aback if someone is bogged down with class ones.
But really why worry about UML class diagrams, there are tools for that (I believe Doxygen does it for you automagically), it does sound strange that your job has a requirement for it since anyone can learn class diagrams in a couple of days and if they are used at work then they won't forget, but since most places won't even use them, then it's ok to look it up when needed....Tools? We're talking about being able to draw boxes with names, and draw differently styled arrows between them! I mean if the guy had just mixed up arrow styles, I wouldn't have batted an eye... He didn't know where to start.
Edit: and as for "being kind of like an EE not remembering the symbol for a resistor" that's just plain wrong, flowcharts are the common ground symbols. There are numerous other diagramming models out there each specific to specific tasks and industries.
80% of people calling themselves software developers are useless.
The other 20% can't say "software developer"
Most of my software designs start from a piece of paper with a few scribbles on it.See? You have scribbles on paper. If it were an OOP system, I bet those scribbles would look a lot like a class diagram.
We don't produce these idiotic database systems, we produce embedded design controllers for traffic lights (amongst others)Embedded systems are a world of their own. I'm not surprised you got away without much planning and having meetings in front of whiteboards. If you're making something small and self-contained, life becomes a LOT simpler and more forgiving.
In my opinion if you have to think about writing code or how to conquer a programming task you've not been doing it long enough. Sure you want to iron out the details on paper, but you should already have the whole thing in your head before you've started writing anything. I guess after 30+ years of daily programming it just comes natural.I'd argue with that. Human working memory is limited, it holds 7 +-2 abstract items. Also the domain can get really effed up. But this isn't a software forum, so let's leave it at that.
I don't think we should criticize anyone for their technique on electronics or programming so long as they are getting the job done and it doesn't blow up or crash, or both :)Let's add "nobody has to tear their hair out trying to refactor the code" to the criteria. ;)
A class diagram allows you to deconstruct the problem domain, see the connections, understand what is what. I've seen too much software that was written without the creator taking the time to understand all that.
That said I've written plenty of UML documentation and even if someone knows how to create class diagrams most don't know how to do interaction, state or activity diagrams.
But really why worry about UML class diagrams, there are tools for that
IMNSHO experience, a class diagram is one of the least informative diagrams.
What is far more useful are:
In my opinion if you have to think about writing code or how to conquer a programming task you've not been doing it long enough. Sure you want to iron out the details on paper, but you should already have the whole thing in your head before you've started writing anything. I guess after 30+ years of daily programming it just comes natural.
IMNSHO experience, a class diagram is one of the least informative diagrams.
What is far more useful are:
I never said it was the most useful diagram. It's usually the first you draw up, though, to get a very high level idea of the structure.
(When given a basic design exercise, the people who were unable to draw one strangely coincided with the people who couldn't for their life figure out which domain object an expected output row was supposed to represent, and how the other domain objects related to that.)
Not in the fields I've worked in, e.g. soft real-time high-availability telecom systems, or networking.
In my opinion if you have to think about writing code or how to conquer a programming task you've not been doing it long enough. Sure you want to iron out the details on paper, but you should already have the whole thing in your head before you've started writing anything. I guess after 30+ years of daily programming it just comes natural.
I don't think we should criticize anyone for their technique on electronics or programming so long as they are getting the job done and it doesn't blow up or crash, or both :)
Jeff
Coding is the easy part. Finding the perfect elegant solution is the ultimate goal.
Coding is the easy part. Finding the perfect elegant solution is the ultimate goal.
Finding the solution is the second part. Unconvering the real underlying problem/requirements is the first part; get that wrong and you'll end up with a perfect, unused product!
My first action when developing something for a client is to say "don't tell me your solution, tell me your problem". I can then often find alternative simpler cheaper faster ways for them to accomplish their goals. And even if I can't, it still helps customer satisfaction.
I think that Dave is being reasonable but there will be many 'professional' engineers who do it for a living who would be hard pressed to cover all the areas.
There will be someone out there with the ability but are they close to the EEVblog headquarters and can they afford to do it? Time will tell.
The *ONLY* limitation here is physical distance.
For instance, I consider myself an EE hobbyist, but I decided CAD board layout is NOT a skill I need. That's because I can (out)source this specific production aspect dirt cheap and spend my energy on engineering/experimenting. So while I am sure there are hobbyists who can do everything you ask, I'd argue they could get a better paying job elsewhere - which means it really comes down to what your brand can attract.
I thought it all was quite reasonable.
My opinion was that Dave's videos were a godsend to hobbyists and engineering students, filling in many voids that a university education has.
He's after a go-getter, so the breed of lazy bare-minimum students I saw during my studies need not apply....
*added*
It was actually a little heart breaking to discover nobody had any passion at all in this field when commencing university level studies
The only marginally problematic requirement is PCB layout, because it actually costs money and time to have boards made. Many students would rather grab perfboard.Not the case in NZ where students have access to Altium labs & PCB etching plants.
Some qualified people should not be in the business,
the hobbyist will always come out on top if you go for a comparable skills competition.
Some people do stuff for fun and to make it the best. Others will muddle through because they are paid but don't really give a shit.
Many students would rather grab perfboard.Which for a one-off prototype, is sound engineering judgement. One should spend more time on the bits that matter, and less time (and money) on the bits that don't. If layout considerations don't require a custom PCB there is little reason to spend time making one.
Some qualified people should not be in the business, the hobbyist will always come out on top if you go for a comparable skills competition. Some people do stuff for fun and to make it the best. Others will muddle through because they are paid but don't really give a shit.I think perhaps you haven't really come across many capable and well qualified people. They are out there, and your eyes would be opened if you worked with one.
I guess I am just confused by the somewhat provocative and sensational subject line Dave used. My understanding of the term "hobbyist" matched what wikipedia defines: "Generally speaking, a person who engages in an activity solely for fun is called a 'hobbyist', whereas a 'professional' generally engages in an activity for reward and an 'amateur' (from French for "lover of") does so out of personal interest in an activity. While an amateur may be as skilled as a professional, a professional receives compensation while an amateur generally does not." So by definition, a hobbyist can not be useless since he is doing stuff for his own pleasure. :-//
Some qualified people should not be in the business, the hobbyist will always come out on top if you go for a comparable skills competition. Some people do stuff for fun and to make it the best. Others will muddle through because they are paid but don't really give a shit.I think perhaps you haven't really come across many capable and well qualified people. They are out there, and your eyes would be opened if you worked with one.
Some qualified people should not be in the business, the hobbyist will always come out on top if you go for a comparable skills competition. Some people do stuff for fun and to make it the best. Others will muddle through because they are paid but don't really give a shit.I think perhaps you haven't really come across many capable and well qualified people. They are out there, and your eyes would be opened if you worked with one.
Some qualified people should not be in the business, the hobbyist will always come out on top if you go for a comparable skills competition. Some people do stuff for fun and to make it the best. Others will muddle through because they are paid but don't really give a shit.I think perhaps you haven't really come across many capable and well qualified people. They are out there, and your eyes would be opened if you worked with one.
Precisely.
Such people can technically point the project in the right direction so that the subsequent detailed elaboration and implementation occurs speedily and without hitches.
They can prevent people going down blind alleys and producting things that sort-of-work when the wind is in the right direction.
When people are flailing around not understanding why something isn't working, they can see the theoretical cause and possible solutions.
They can prevent bodged "solutions".
Theory without practice is mental masturbation.
Practice without theory is merely alchemical magic.
Some qualified people should not be in the business, the hobbyist will always come out on top if you go for a comparable skills competition. Some people do stuff for fun and to make it the best. Others will muddle through because they are paid but don't really give a shit.I think perhaps you haven't really come across many capable and well qualified people. They are out there, and your eyes would be opened if you worked with one.
Precisely.
Such people can technically point the project in the right direction so that the subsequent detailed elaboration and implementation occurs speedily and without hitches.
They can prevent people going down blind alleys and producting things that sort-of-work when the wind is in the right direction.
When people are flailing around not understanding why something isn't working, they can see the theoretical cause and possible solutions.
They can prevent bodged "solutions".
Theory without practice is mental masturbation.
Practice without theory is merely alchemical magic.
Sorry to smash your world to bits but what stops a hobbyist and self taught person learning a good deal of theory ? since when does a text book tell you how to design a complete practical system ? if your mind is closed and can't work, it just won't happen. Hence some of the "text book" implementations I have seen that do not work in the real world.
How many times have I come to this forum to ask advice and gone away much wiser, many don't have this capability of seeking peers advice. Even our experienced and competent new replacement has been on here asking advice, because the most powerful thing of all is to understand that you may not have all of the answers and know when to ask for help or others similar experiences.........
Absolutely nothing "stops a hobbyist and self taught person learning a good deal of theory". You will not find anything I have said which indicates that I might have such an mistaken belief. Hence your point is a mere "strawman argument".
FWIW, I have met some such people, and greatly respect them. Just as I respect those that have a good understanding of theory.
Do you respect people with a good understanding of theory? If not then it would be hard to differentiate your views from mere (and ignorable) inverted snobbery
I think qualified and quality don't got hand in hand.This is true to some extent, there are plenty of Microsoft Certified Engineers for example that managed to qualify for the course but have no troubleshooting ability. Absorbing facts and being able to remember them to fill out an exam form is not the same as having the ability to develop a good understanding and the ability to think things through for yourself to arrive at a solution.
... I have nothing against qualifications and am starting to study them myself ...
... I have nothing against qualifications and am starting to study them myself ...
Revealing, and now I understand your limited view of the world. (Everybody's view is, of course, limited).
I hope that, as you progress, you will come to value "pure theory" not only for itself, but also for the way it can shape and guide practice.
But in reality basic electronics design it's pretty much an all or nothing skillset. i.e. someone who can design a decent circuit will almost certainly have skills in laying out a board and building and testing. You are unlikely to find someone who can test and troubleshoot and lay out boards, but can't design basic building block circuits for example.
Ok, but someone might be crap at documentation for example, or firmware, well that can be taught and/or not necessary.
I etched my first PCB while I was in high school by following examples I read about in hobby electronics magazines such as Popular Electronics and learned a great deal from such luminaries as Don Lancaster. This was back around 1969-70, or so. I got my first job at Mouser Electronics (back when it was a small import company based in Lakeside California) by identifying electronic components on a board. The job was for a warehouse picker, but I did so well on the test that I got to meet the founder, Jerry Mouser, who gave me a job designing educational electronic kits to sell to schools in their catalog. I had to design the circuits (mostly adapted from magazine articles), etch the PCBs, write, typeset and print the manuals and then package the finished kits. I was 19 at the time and had no formal training other than being a "hobbyist".:-+ :clap: well done ! that is the kind of self-starter motivation dave is looking for.
Wayne
You don't need to know Ohms law to make an Arduino board play a tune.
This makes me sad. I hang out in the Arduino forums, and I see this a lot. People coming in and wanting to build something, with no knowledge of Ohm's Law, or Kirchoff's Voltage and Current Laws, and no interest in learning them. They want to just write some code and plug jumpers in.
2. I think "hobbyist" would be someone who doesnt do this for a living.
I feel that bashing "people today" has become something of a fad in the tech community.
QuoteI feel that bashing "people today" has become something of a fad in the tech community.
Not really. I've always been aware of those "people today" who don't seem to know much about their chosen profession. 2 year degrees, applying for the same jobs I was. They get an interview but I don't because I didn't have that little sheet of paper. Yet they can't read a color code and can barely solder.
It doesn't qualify as a fad, then. ;)
There must be at least dozen of students/hobbyists fitting your requirements living nearby
First, if you want a candidate to have a skill, it should be because you want them to utilize that skill, and therefore they need to be fairly compensated at fair market value for having and using that skill. Otherwise, they won't stick around long or they won't perform - and you can't really blame them for either if they're not making fair market value. There are exceptions like internships, work-study, lab assistants and such, but this is a "real" job and those exceptions don't apply.
Finding someone with all the skills requested who is reasonably proficient in those skills isn't impossible - but the pay will need to be commensurate with that experience. We don't know what they pay is so this isn't a criticism - I assume we're speaking about a pay level that matches the skillset being asked for.
I'd have to say the last two posts are spot on.
Dave isn't replying to this post. I'll give you 3 guesses why, but you only need one. It's cause he's sure he's found someone. :scared:
I hope you make us all a lair Dave!
So before you acquire the mentioned skills you cannot be called hobbyist, can you? What are you then?
So before you acquire the mentioned skills you cannot be called hobbyist, can you? What are you then? Sorry does not make sense to me.
[...] And they range from hobbyists, school kids, EE students, graduates (up to masters), industry experienced, and even retirees.
So before you acquire the mentioned skills you cannot be called hobbyist, can you? What are you then? Sorry does not make sense to me.
Join the boat AlienRelics.
Or start doing what I do, freelance work, and then I get paid to correct all the mistakes that the so called engineers make when they burn the factory down when they try to light up a led with a freaking arduino :-DD
QuoteI feel that bashing "people today" has become something of a fad in the tech community.
Not really. I've always been aware of those "people today" who don't seem to know much about their chosen profession. 2 year degrees, applying for the same jobs I was. They get an interview but I don't because I didn't have that little sheet of paper. Yet they can't read a color code and can barely solder.
It doesn't qualify as a fad, then. ;)
Join the boat AlienRelics.
Or start doing what I do, freelance work, and then I get paid to correct all the mistakes that the so called engineers make when they burn the factory down when they try to light up a led with a freaking arduino :-DD
Without that maths and theoretical insight, the Battle of Britain would have been lost and my German would be much better than it is.It looks like the above statement is wrong. Just gave this a cursory look so I may be wrong instead.
Looking at the stats on those Merlin engines is "mechanical porn"!
I want an engine that can produce 1200kW at 3000rpm!
Looking at the stats on those Merlin engines is "mechanical porn"!I could see Top Gear putting one of those in a Geo Metro. :-DD
I want an engine that can produce 1200kW at 3000rpm!
Correct, I think it is.
But once again, it ain't that black out white.
There is a huge difference between having the basic hobby level skills (that I am after) to lay out say a double sided low frequency board, and being able to lay out a professional 12 layer board with bleeding edge design rules and GHz signals integrated into a high end system with high end requirements.
Both can be described the same as "PCB design layout experience" in job descriptions.
Furthur very lmited research is ... ambiguous.QuoteWithout that maths and theoretical insight, the Battle of Britain would have been lost and my German would be much better than it is.It looks like the above statement is wrong. Just gave this a cursory look so I may be wrong instead.
It seems Stanley Hooker's designs only went in after Battle of Britain, October 1940, I think the battle was lost and won by then.
ps. Not disrespecting Stanley's designs.
Furthur very lmited research is ... ambiguous.QuoteWithout that maths and theoretical insight, the Battle of Britain would have been lost and my German would be much better than it is.It looks like the above statement is wrong. Just gave this a cursory look so I may be wrong instead.
It seems Stanley Hooker's designs only went in after Battle of Britain, October 1940, I think the battle was lost and won by then.
ps. Not disrespecting Stanley's designs.
The reference I quoted is unambiguously "in my favour". Wackypedia's Merlin entry can be read either way. Hooker started on the supercharger in 1938 and the major result (the two stage supercharger) was immediately post Battle of Britain (i.e. Oct 1940). But my memory and suspicion is that he contributed to the single stage supercharger used in the BoB.
Either way, it doesn't detract from my contention that theory is as important as practice; either alone is much less useful.
I think the bottom line here is not everyone can be as skilled as others. In the end those that are, and those that are not still end up with good paying jobs and their employers seam to still like them.
I think the bottom line here is not everyone can be as skilled as others. In the end those that are, and those that are not still end up with good paying jobs and their employers seam to still like them.
Which planet have you been living on ? the world is full of high flying "clever" people who turn out all too often to not be as skilled as was assumed. For 3 months worth of my net wages my employer was happy to have to incompetent prat built two very shoddily designed circuits, in the same time I could have done the same but much better, I then went on to spend 2 weeks fixing this post graduates fuck ups, but he is the one that is probably earning more than me and getting automatic recognition because of his post graduate degree, I'm the one that gets treated like an idiot because I don't have qualifications unless i happen to save the day and a lot of money! - Welcome to life
In this world it's what you have on paper and letters after your name and not your aptitude, enthusiasm or competence.
Too often competence and qualification get confused, a qualification does not guarantee competence, and just because your competent does not mean you got a high level qualification.
I find it very odd that 3rd-4th year EE students would not possess these skills, I can do most of the things you listed but I am still iffy on my programming skills and It has been my hobby for about 3 years . It makes me wonder how these students will fare in the real world when they have to apply there skills in real world applications and not being able to do it.
I think your video is a wake up call to hobbyist and students that electronics is not just on paper.
I find it very odd that 3rd-4th year EE students would not possess these skills, I can do most of the things you listed but I am still iffy on my programming skills and It has been my hobby for about 3 years . It makes me wonder how these students will fare in the real world when they have to apply there skills in real world applications and not being able to do it.
I think your video is a wake up call to hobbyist and students that electronics is not just on paper.
I got my last three full time programing jobs without even submitting a resume. It's more than just not on paper it's also who you know and what contacts you've made. My first big fortune 500 company job I got because of who I knew. I proved myself with that job and made all the others that followed easy to obtain. I always like to tell people, be confident but not cocky.
Jeff
I got my last three full time programing jobs without even submitting a resume. It's more than just not on paper it's also who you know and what contacts you've made. My first big fortune 500 company job I got because of who I knew. I proved myself with that job and made all the others that followed easy to obtain. I always like to tell people, be confident but not cocky.
Jeff
Yes I got pulled off the street, I got noticed as i worked for my company in a laboring role and was asked back as a QC inspector, then pissed the works manager off for not letting him sent crap out so he bumped me into engineering where they took me as a joke at first but now rely on me heavily.
Of course I'm poorly paid and and lucky to have a job, there will be shop floor workers paid more than me.......... Why, bacause I don't have the bit of paper.....
The exception of course might be medicine where they frown upon hobbyist.
Furthur very lmited research is ... ambiguous.QuoteWithout that maths and theoretical insight, the Battle of Britain would have been lost and my German would be much better than it is.It looks like the above statement is wrong. Just gave this a cursory look so I may be wrong instead.
It seems Stanley Hooker's designs only went in after Battle of Britain, October 1940, I think the battle was lost and won by then.
ps. Not disrespecting Stanley's designs.
The reference I quoted is unambiguously "in my favour". Wackypedia's Merlin entry can be read either way. Hooker started on the supercharger in 1938 and the major result (the two stage supercharger) was immediately post Battle of Britain (i.e. Oct 1940). But my memory and suspicion is that he contributed to the single stage supercharger used in the BoB.
Either way, it doesn't detract from my contention that theory is as important as practice; either alone is much less useful.
You still live under the illusion that hobbyists lack a knowledge or appreciation of theory. Do you have a high flying qualification that you guard closely in case it is spotted that maybe in practice (knowledge and practical ability) you not up to it ?
I think the bottom line here is not everyone can be as skilled as others. In the end those that are, and those that are not still end up with good paying jobs and their employers seam to still like them.
Which planet have you been living on ? the world is full of high flying "clever" people who turn out all too often to not be as skilled as was assumed. For 3 months worth of my net wages my employer was happy to have to incompetent prat built two very shoddily designed circuits, in the same time I could have done the same but much better, I then went on to spend 2 weeks fixing this post graduates fuck ups, but he is the one that is probably earning more than me and getting automatic recognition because of his post graduate degree, I'm the one that gets treated like an idiot because I don't have qualifications unless i happen to save the day and a lot of money! - Welcome to life
In this world it's what you have on paper and letters after your name and not your aptitude, enthusiasm or competence.
Too often competence and qualification get confused, a qualification does not guarantee competence, and just because your competent does not mean you got a high level qualification.
Yes I got pulled off the street, I got noticed as i worked for my company in a laboring role and was asked back as a QC inspector, then pissed the works manager off for not letting him sent crap out so he bumped me into engineering where they took me as a joke at first but now rely on me heavily.
Of course I'm poorly paid and and lucky to have a job, there will be shop floor workers paid more than me.......... Why, bacause I don't have the bit of paper.....
And exactly the same points can with equal validity be made about amateurs that don't have a clue about what they don't understand.
That's so well-known it is even given a name: the Dunning Kreuger effect.
Yes I got pulled off the street, I got noticed as i worked for my company in a laboring role and was asked back as a QC inspector, then pissed the works manager off for not letting him sent crap out so he bumped me into engineering where they took me as a joke at first but now rely on me heavily.
Of course I'm poorly paid and and lucky to have a job, there will be shop floor workers paid more than me.......... Why, bacause I don't have the bit of paper.....
The engineering institutions have paths for people that don't have the paper academic qualifications. Why don't you follow those paths and get a post-grad paper qualification, e.g. become a chartered engineer?
Becoming a chartered engineer isn't easy. I know of one person (a one-time boss) that was rejected because he had moved into management too quickly.
When a guy comes to you and moans that your thermistor you gave him to use does not have enough resolution (to flat a response curve) and you ask as you know he is using AVR's how many bits he is using and he says 8!!!!! you can either :-DD or :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: there's just no hope!
QuoteWhen a guy comes to you and moans that your thermistor you gave him to use does not have enough resolution (to flat a response curve) and you ask as you know he is using AVR's how many bits he is using and he says 8!!!!! you can either :-DD or :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: there's just no hope!
Please tell me that's a made up example, and not a real scenario you've faced... because.. that's just sad.. (and I think I'm barely qualified to be considered an electronics hobbyist, and I know thermistors (most resistors really..) are analogue, and therefore pretty well have an 'infinite' resolution.(without going down to a quantum level))
As I said because I DO appreciate the requirement for a solid foundation in theory, I am not only doing a HNC in electronic engineering sponsored by my company but I'm happy to do a level 3 in maths required because i appreciate that without it I won't understand the theory anyway. A HNC is the highest qualification i can go for without prior qualifications and although technically a L3 is required they are happy to take on people with some prior experience in the industry. After a HNC I can do a HND, i think that is as far as I will be able to go with employer support and personal motivation as after that you are talking a full on degree. I have mild dyslexia but I'm also quite intelligent and quite mindful of my limitations, hence I've never made a major cockup or put anyones lives at risk because I do have the prime quality which is to know my limits in the first place and then assess what I can do to get round them.
QuoteWhen a guy comes to you and moans that your thermistor you gave him to use does not have enough resolution (to flat a response curve) and you ask as you know he is using AVR's how many bits he is using and he says 8!!!!! you can either :-DD or :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: there's just no hope!
Please tell me that's a made up example, and not a real scenario you've faced... because.. that's just sad.. (and I think I'm barely qualified to be considered an electronics hobbyist, and I know thermistors (most resistors really..) are analogue, and therefore pretty well have an 'infinite' resolution.(without going down to a quantum level))
I'll give my 2p on this based on decades of experience in EE...
A typical and keen hobbyist (but not all hobbyists so please don't be offended) tends to gain experience and knowledge in a kind of scrapbook fashion. Lots and lots of little nuggets of very useful info and experience gained over many years and this can make them appear very knowledgable and even give them delusions of grandeur.
But... and it's a huge 'but'... if you take them away from this scrapbook and give them a fresh problem then it often gets quite scary because you realise that often there is nothing inbetween the little scrapbook nuggets for them to fall back on. Often this means they can't apply basic theory to a fresh problem or they simply make up their own version of physics based on common myths. This isn't good. A little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous if there are no fundamentals to fall back on...
However, if you look at fresh graduates (decent ones) then you tend to get a fairly blank canvas. Initially they lack the skills and experience of the hobbyist but they can be groomed over time to fill in these shortcomings and eventually the hobbyist will be outclassed in nearly every department. But this can take several years.
But you can also groom a hobbyist into becoming a better EE by providing training courses or part time education and this can help fill in the gaps in their 'scrapbook' with some solid theory. Sometimes this can give a real boost to their abilities as they have more and more 'Eureka moments' as the gaps in the scrapbook get filled in. So you end up with a very capable EE but by a different path.
At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...
I'll give my 2p on this based on decades of experience in EE...
A typical and keen hobbyist (but not all hobbyists so please don't be offended) tends to gain experience and knowledge in a kind of scrapbook fashion. Lots and lots of little nuggets of very useful info and experience gained over many years and this can make them appear very knowledgable and even give them delusions of grandeur.
But... and it's a huge 'but'... if you take them away from this scrapbook and give them a fresh problem then it often gets quite scary because you realise that often there is nothing inbetween the little scrapbook nuggets for them to fall back on. Often this means they can't apply basic theory to a fresh problem or they simply make up their own version of physics based on common myths. This isn't good. A little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous if there are no fundamentals to fall back on...
However, if you look at fresh graduates (decent ones) then you tend to get a fairly blank canvas. Initially they lack the skills and experience of the hobbyist but they can be groomed over time to fill in these shortcomings and eventually the hobbyist will be outclassed in nearly every department. But this can take several years.
But you can also groom a hobbyist into becoming a better EE by providing training courses or part time education and this can help fill in the gaps in their 'scrapbook' with some solid theory. Sometimes this can give a real boost to their abilities as they have more and more 'Eureka moments' as the gaps in the scrapbook get filled in. So you end up with a very capable EE but by a different path.
At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...
At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...
I'll give my 2p on this based on decades of experience in EE...
A typical and keen hobbyist (but not all hobbyists so please don't be offended) tends to gain experience and knowledge in a kind of scrapbook fashion. Lots and lots of little nuggets of very useful info and experience gained over many years and this can make them appear very knowledgable and even give them delusions of grandeur.
But... and it's a huge 'but'... if you take them away from this scrapbook and give them a fresh problem then it often gets quite scary because you realise that often there is nothing inbetween the little scrapbook nuggets for them to fall back on. Often this means they can't apply basic theory to a fresh problem or they simply make up their own version of physics based on common myths. This isn't good. A little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous if there are no fundamentals to fall back on...
However, if you look at fresh graduates (decent ones) then you tend to get a fairly blank canvas. Initially they lack the skills and experience of the hobbyist but they can be groomed over time to fill in these shortcomings and eventually the hobbyist will be outclassed in nearly every department. But this can take several years.
But you can also groom a hobbyist into becoming a better EE by providing training courses or part time education and this can help fill in the gaps in their 'scrapbook' with some solid theory. Sometimes this can give a real boost to their abilities as they have more and more 'Eureka moments' as the gaps in the scrapbook get filled in. So you end up with a very capable EE but by a different path.
At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...
:-+
sometimes it is so frustrating to know what you wish to do, but only know so much lesser than is required
try sitting there having to let an "expert" get it all wrong knowing that he is allowed to just because of a peice of paper for frustration. Try staying calm and professional when a guy wants a better sensor because he does not know how to use the one he has for frustration...... Like I said on a sample of 5 people I have had dealings with "professionally" 80% were not fit for purpose, I'm not saying tnat is across the board but it shows there are plenty of places available for incompetent wielders of pieces of paper, and some of them get to make mistakes that could kill. Never said I was all knowledgeable but it's painful to have to correct other peoples work when they are supposed to be better at you and probably better paid.
At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...
And at the end of the day, some people are really really good at engineering, and some people are and always will be really really crap at engineering, even if highly qualified.
Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary. No one individual will ever be good at all aspects. If can restrict you requirements thenyou can find them in a single individual. To cover all of engineering you need multiple individuals.
If you fast forward to 2014 (nearly 2015!) you can create the same environment over the internet but the main stumbling block would be if you tried to do it as a text based forum. Text isn't the best way to communicate and it usually causes friction and upset and so communication and goodwill can quickly break down.
Back in 1990 I was incredibly priviliged to work amongst those talented engineers that started the company and I know how powerful it can be to get a group of decent engineers in a room with a whiteboard and a few design tools. It's a great environment to learn and share knowledge.
Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.
... or lack of qualifications.Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.
... or lack of qualifications.Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.
Qualifications and cluefulness are orthogonal concepts.
Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.
The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.
Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.
The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.
... or lack of qualifications.
Qualifications and cluefulness are orthogonal concepts.
oh there he goes again :scared: qualifications = your automatically clever argument, how long have you lived in the real world ?
It makes no sense to substitute "you're" for "your". Simon is using the correct term here. "You are automatically clever argument" is not the Queens English, old chap. What an utter fail :palm:... or lack of qualifications.
Qualifications and cluefulness are orthogonal concepts.
oh there he goes again :scared: qualifications = your automatically clever argument, how long have you lived in the real world ?
Well, I can't really parse that stunning specimen of language, but assuming you meant "you're", I'm going to guess you have no clue what "orthogonal" means. Your response seems rather, er, parallel to the claim he appears to be making...
... or lack of qualifications.Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.
Qualifications and cluefulness are orthogonal concepts.
oh there he goes again :scared: qualifications = your automatically clever argument, how long have you lived in the real world ?
Not wanting to be funny but how about we keep the language simple ;)But but but I enjoy discussing "high Q commutating capacitor filters", "low impedance Z0 probes", "aliasing", "metastability", "byzantine generals problem", "cascode amplifiers" etc. :)
So? Are electronics hobbyists useless? Other than observing the threadspace increase of this thread I haven't read it all. Has a concensus view been established?
So? Are electronics hobbyists useless? Other than observing the threadspace increase of this thread I haven't read it all. Has a concensus view been established?
So? Are electronics hobbyists useless? Other than observing the threadspace increase of this thread I haven't read it all. Has a concensus view been established?Didn't you get the memo? "Forum filled with engineering types" and "consensus view" are orthogonal concepts. And the dot product doesn't look all that promising for "reading comprehension" either. :o
So? Are electronics hobbyists useless? Other than observing the threadspace increase of this thread I haven't read it all. Has a concensus view been established?Didn't you get the memo? "Forum filled with engineering types" and "consensus view" are orthogonal concepts. And the dot product doesn't look all that promising for "reading comprehension" either. :o
But there is an almost perfect correlation to a score somewhere along the Autistic scale though.
So? Are electronics hobbyists useless? Other than observing the threadspace increase of this thread I haven't read it all. Has a concensus view been established?Didn't you get the memo? "Forum filled with engineering types" and "consensus view" are orthogonal concepts. And the dot product doesn't look all that promising for "reading comprehension" either. :o
Maybe you should try a cross product instead since you are looking for orthogonality ;)I considered that, but I didn't want to go all Grassmannian on you guys. ;D
Dicey, you need to be low enough to actually interact with people, but too low and you are normal. Too high and you might be a great engineer, but you will never do any work.
Funny thing is the maths rarely is used by itself,
As I said, the maths is rarely used by itself, but as part of another part of design. You always apply it, but almost never just use it on it's own.
However, knowing how it works to some degree is very important though.
So? Are electronics hobbyists useless? Other than observing the threadspace increase of this thread I haven't read it all. Has a concensus view been established?
The title was only designed to be provocative and get people to watch, it wasn't a genuine question.
The real question was whether or not I was asking too much of someone with hobbyist or student/hobby skills, and the resounding answer is no, I was not asking too much.
But of course the question was rhetorical because I already knew the answer anyway ;D
exp(i*pi/n) != exp(-i*pi/n) where for the boring regular square root n=2.
As always, when in doubt just plonk it in Euler form. :P
proof that math can prove anything. which is why i stay away from it ... the circuit on the bench does not lie. no matter what the maths say.As I said, the maths is rarely used by itself, but as part of another part of design. You always apply it, but almost never just use it on it's own.
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you mean. Unless you're thinking of the completely artificial and pointless distinction between pure maths and applied maths.
QuoteHowever, knowing how it works to some degree is very important though.
As someone once said, the best maths is the maths you can use without reverting to deriving everything from first principles. But you need to understand the first principles so you don't violate them.
Example -1=1, without misuse of zeros, and in an example which can foul up frequency domain analysis of electronic circuits:
1: sqrt(-1) = sqrt(-1)
2: therefore sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1)
3: therefore sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
4: therefore sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1)*sqrt(1)
5: therefore -1 = 1
QED
Almost everybody can correctly determine that the error is going from 2 to 3, but they can't say what the error is. I've only come across one person who could give the reason.
proof that math can prove anything. which is why i stay away from it ... the circuit on the bench does not lie. no matter what the maths say.
proof that math can prove anything. which is why i stay away from it ... the circuit on the bench does not lie. no matter what the maths say.
It proves nothing of the sort. The "math" is wrong, i.e. it is not mathematics.
Besides, yes, circuits on the bench do lie, frequently! For examples, you only have to look at other threads in this forum.
Besides, yes, circuits on the bench do lienope. they do exactly what the laws of physics dictate. that may not be what you intended , but the error is on your side, not on the circuits side !
sqrt(-1) is not a real number is an imaginary one.That's why I usually decline to participate in little math puzzles like this. My original reply was going to be that the problem was the problem definition. ;) But oh well, let's cut tggzzz some slack, and let us just assume (uh oh) that on an EE forum the socially acceptable solution space for sqrt(-1) is going to be the complex plane. And in that case there are indeed two solutions as you say. But if a problem neatly leaves such details as solution space undefined, well then you can use anything that is valid. And in that case there's a few more than 2 solutions. If you use quaternions that's 6 solutions already: +/- i, +/- j, +/- k. And if you use octonions there still more, which I'm not going to list here. If only because those octonion bastards are non-associative and it's too early in the afternoon for that. :o But as luck would have it no matter what space you pick, it all fails on an inequality similar to the one posted earlier.
finally sqrt have two answers.
Only took 17 pages though to get totally derailed and off somewhere down the rabbit hole into Wonderland.
Does a knitted penguin come close to being a white rabbit here?
proof that math can prove anything. which is why i stay away from it ... the circuit on the bench does not lie. no matter what the maths say.
proof that math can prove anything. which is why i stay away from it ... the circuit on the bench does not lie. no matter what the maths say.
As someone once said, the best maths is the maths you can use without reverting to deriving everything from first principles. But you need to understand the first principles so you don't violate them.
Example -1=1, without misuse of zeros, and in an example which can foul up frequency domain analysis of electronic circuits:
1: sqrt(-1) = sqrt(-1)
2: therefore sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1)
3: therefore sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
4: therefore sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1)*sqrt(1)
5: therefore -1 = 1
QED
Almost everybody can correctly determine that the error is going from 2 to 3, but they can't say what the error is. I've only come across one person who could give the reason.
You don't need to resort to anything so extensive. The simple fact is that the sqrt(1) is +/-1 so you could just putAs someone once said, the best maths is the maths you can use without reverting to deriving everything from first principles. But you need to understand the first principles so you don't violate them.
Example -1=1, without misuse of zeros, and in an example which can foul up frequency domain analysis of electronic circuits:
1: sqrt(-1) = sqrt(-1)
2: therefore sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1)
3: therefore sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
4: therefore sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1)*sqrt(1)
5: therefore -1 = 1
QED
Almost everybody can correctly determine that the error is going from 2 to 3, but they can't say what the error is. I've only come across one person who could give the reason.
Back before Christsmas I had PMs requesting that I show the error. Given the difficulty of formatting maths on this forum, it will be difficult, but I'll do my best.
Firstly, as any fule knos, "i" represents current, so I'll use the traditional "j" to be sqrt(-1), and I'll use "w" instead of omega=2*pi*f. Secondly, this kind of manipulation can arise when doing frequency domain analysis of circuits, where term such as 1/(R+jwL) are common. Thirdly, I'll note that MrFlibble's comment about using the Euler form is equivalent to using the complex conjugate described below.
The key is recognising that a full representation of a complex number is a+jb, and that sqrt(-1) is a special case when a=0 and b=1.
If we want to "get rid of the complex denominator" / "move the j to the top line" in 1/(a+jb) we have to multiply top and bottom by the complex conjugate (a-jb).
(1/(a+jb))*((a-jb)/(a-jb))
Multiplying out the numerator and denominator gives
(a-jb)/(a2-jab+jab+b2)
or
(a-jb)/(a2+b2)
Now for the special case where a=0 and b=1, we can see that 1/j = -j/1 , and that's why
sqrt(1/-1) != sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
And that's why despite "the best maths being the maths you can use without reverting to deriving everything from first principles", you need to understand the first principles so you don't violate them.
I hope that's all legible :)
You don't need to resort to anything so extensive. The simple fact is that the sqrt(1) is +/-1 so you could just putAs someone once said, the best maths is the maths you can use without reverting to deriving everything from first principles. But you need to understand the first principles so you don't violate them.
Example -1=1, without misuse of zeros, and in an example which can foul up frequency domain analysis of electronic circuits:
1: sqrt(-1) = sqrt(-1)
2: therefore sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1)
3: therefore sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
4: therefore sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1)*sqrt(1)
5: therefore -1 = 1
QED
Almost everybody can correctly determine that the error is going from 2 to 3, but they can't say what the error is. I've only come across one person who could give the reason.
Back before Christsmas I had PMs requesting that I show the error. Given the difficulty of formatting maths on this forum, it will be difficult, but I'll do my best.
Firstly, as any fule knos, "i" represents current, so I'll use the traditional "j" to be sqrt(-1), and I'll use "w" instead of omega=2*pi*f. Secondly, this kind of manipulation can arise when doing frequency domain analysis of circuits, where term such as 1/(R+jwL) are common. Thirdly, I'll note that MrFlibble's comment about using the Euler form is equivalent to using the complex conjugate described below.
The key is recognising that a full representation of a complex number is a+jb, and that sqrt(-1) is a special case when a=0 and b=1.
If we want to "get rid of the complex denominator" / "move the j to the top line" in 1/(a+jb) we have to multiply top and bottom by the complex conjugate (a-jb).
(1/(a+jb))*((a-jb)/(a-jb))
Multiplying out the numerator and denominator gives
(a-jb)/(a2-jab+jab+b2)
or
(a-jb)/(a2+b2)
Now for the special case where a=0 and b=1, we can see that 1/j = -j/1 , and that's why
sqrt(1/-1) != sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
And that's why despite "the best maths being the maths you can use without reverting to deriving everything from first principles", you need to understand the first principles so you don't violate them.
I hope that's all legible :)
sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)
therefore -1 = +1 as they are both the sqrt(1).
The misuse of math or other very factual system has long been misused to "prove" various scams :-DD
The misuse of math or other very factual system has long been misused to "prove" various scams :-DDYou mean like the "30 second recharging Rechargeable Battery"? :palm:
No.It still seems to me to be a case of carelessness when taking roots, particularly of complex numbers.
While true, that neither explains the problem/solution nor illuminates the way in which it bites in s-plane (frequency domain) analysis. I refer you to my hint concerning 1/(R+jwL) for an example of the latter.
I'm not sure under what circumstances it is necessary to take complex roots in circuit analysis. Such a + b(jw) analysis is generally used in linear analysis of circuits and having a root function would be nonlinear.
In my own case. I was an EE student but switched to CompSci my SENIOR year. It was the mid 80's and I simply decided that I liked all the new exciting computer stuff more. I don't regret that decision, the 80s, 90s, and first decade of the 2000's were exciting times in IT and provided a very interesting career.
So, while I am not an EE, I ended up an IT professional for the last 20 years, but it was my original interest, and it and ham radio have made it my hobby. I don't remember everything from school, and lots of it is not all that up to day anyway probably, but it certainly provided a very good 'base' for my hobby electronics experimentation. In my hobby level electronics I am pretty sure I would fit your skills myself and I have never worked a single day as an EE or with electronics professionally, its all been an IT career for me.
For many people computer stuff is a hobby, for me at the skill level I have now, its almost too easy to do nearly anything IT related and it has become just a "job" that I don't want to do at home as well as work. So ham radio and electronics provide that same mental stimulation and challenge that computers used to provide me when I was young.
I do believe your best bet to find someone that would fit WOULD be either a hobbyist or maybe a retired EE who used to be technical but at some point got into mgmt, sales, consulting etc, but still has a love of electronics and would enjoy doing it again.
Frankly, I think you should have "Advanced Amateur Radio License" as a job requirement. :)
If you want a group of non-EE professionals who have serious electronics skills, hang around ham radio people.
Now for the special case where a=0 and b=1, we can see that 1/j = -j/1 , and that's why
sqrt(1/-1) != sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
I think North American education dramatically misses out somewhere on teaching math to kids when they are young or something. I found that number of people (engineers, programmers, accountants) that are scared of math among North Americans are drastically higher than let's say among Indians, Chinese or those who get Soviet education or those who went to school in Europe. I must say they usually catch up when they go to university but they go through so much pain and fear never goes away. It is like they had this drastic experience of drowning in backyard pool when they were kids and even though they can swim now fear is always with them.There has been a shift in priorities over the past 40 years away from numeracy and literacy (the 3 R's) and toward teamwork, "problem solving" and interpersonal skills as desired by employers.
Going back to reality vs mathematical abstraction - there is famous quote of Richard Freymann:
"physics is to mathematics as sex is to masturbation"
I think North American education dramatically misses out somewhere on teaching math to kids when they are young or something. I found that number of people (engineers, programmers, accountants) that are scared of math among North Americans are drastically higher than let's say among Indians, Chinese or those who get Soviet education or those who went to school in Europe. I must say they usually catch up when they go to university but they go through so much pain and fear never goes away. It is like they had this drastic experience of drowning in backyard pool when they were kids and even though they can swim now fear is always with them.There has been a shift in priorities over the past 40 years away from numeracy and literacy (the 3 R's) and toward teamwork, "problem solving" and interpersonal skills as desired by employers.
Going back to reality vs mathematical abstraction - there is famous quote of Richard Freymann:
"physics is to mathematics as sex is to masturbation"
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-66atIwXiVZo/VKRBkPopK0I/AAAAAAAAKSg/KVNnVihH4-o/s1600/Fortune500.png)
In other words, they don't care if Jack can't add or subtract, read or write (since that can be done with hardware these days...) but must play well with others, do as he is told and follow the leader.
Interesting article here:
http://devlinsangle.blogspot.com/2015/01/your-fathers-mathematics-teaching-no.html (http://devlinsangle.blogspot.com/2015/01/your-fathers-mathematics-teaching-no.html)
Simon, you should see the SA education system. At best they are proud that they are going back to making the pass level 50%, as opposed to the one for the last few years of 30% being a pass, or you just get bumped up if you are not even at that level. Not helped by an education department that cannot even provide little things like schoolbooks, teachers, schools............. But they do have a nice fancy new central office suite for the top levels, and all are driving department supplied luxury 4x4 vehicles.
A class diagram allows you to deconstruct the problem domain, see the connections, understand what is what. I've seen too much software that was written without the creator taking the time to understand all that.
IMNSHO experience, a class diagram is one of the least informative diagrams.
What is far more useful are:
- state diagrams, i.e. the Harel StateCharts. No, Mr NewGrad, FSMs aren't only usful for parsers
- interaction diagrams, i.e. the swimlanes. Especially useful in distributed systems, so that you can see overlapping processing
- and the name escapes me, but the diagram that shows which processing is done on which machine, and the communication mechanism
- proper use of parallelism design patterns, e.g. as embodied in Doug Lea's concurrency classes. No Mr NewGrad, you shouldn't be using wait(), notify(), synchronized, volatile
A class diagram allows you to deconstruct the problem domain, see the connections, understand what is what. I've seen too much software that was written without the creator taking the time to understand all that.
IMNSHO experience, a class diagram is one of the least informative diagrams.
What is far more useful are:
- state diagrams, i.e. the Harel StateCharts. No, Mr NewGrad, FSMs aren't only usful for parsers
- interaction diagrams, i.e. the swimlanes. Especially useful in distributed systems, so that you can see overlapping processing
- and the name escapes me, but the diagram that shows which processing is done on which machine, and the communication mechanism
- proper use of parallelism design patterns, e.g. as embodied in Doug Lea's concurrency classes. No Mr NewGrad, you shouldn't be using wait(), notify(), synchronized, volatile
bitch please, HW guys discussing SW design topic, is like white people calling eachother niggas
A class diagram allows you to deconstruct the problem domain, see the connections, understand what is what. I've seen too much software that was written without the creator taking the time to understand all that.
IMNSHO experience, a class diagram is one of the least informative diagrams.
What is far more useful are:
- state diagrams, i.e. the Harel StateCharts. No, Mr NewGrad, FSMs aren't only usful for parsers
- interaction diagrams, i.e. the swimlanes. Especially useful in distributed systems, so that you can see overlapping processing
- and the name escapes me, but the diagram that shows which processing is done on which machine, and the communication mechanism
- proper use of parallelism design patterns, e.g. as embodied in Doug Lea's concurrency classes. No Mr NewGrad, you shouldn't be using wait(), notify(), synchronized, volatile
bitch please, HW guys discussing SW design topic, is like white people calling eachother niggas
Do you have a coherent point to make, or are you just trolling?
BTW, it might be wise to be a little more humble, just in case your unstated presumptions turn out to be completely inaccurate.
...Maybe his CV got rejected...
Why would someone work for you when they can work in big companies, where they have a future, they offer internships, on the job trainings,There are (or at the very least will be) an ever increasing number of eternal hobbyists in this country.
you can work with latest technologies, million dollar equipments etc, you can build your carrier there.
Dave, your expectation are way to high!
It is not that skilled hobbysts/engineers don't exist, they do, but they would never apply to your job offer.
You are basically offering a dead end job which doesn't pay much
and part of your job is to take out the rubbish.
Why would someone work for you when they can work in big companies, where they have a future, they offer internships, on the job trainings,
you can work with latest technologies, million dollar equipments etc, you can build your carrier there.
Quoteand part of your job is to take out the rubbish.
Yep, what's your point?
It's good test to perform early, if you were "too good" to keep the workshop tidy (it is a safety thing too), you got fired.
QuoteIt's good test to perform early, if you were "too good" to keep the workshop tidy (it is a safety thing too), you got fired.
Then you might miss out on blokes like this.
(http://m.eet.com/media/1155372/291880-jim_williams_in_his_lab_2007.jpg)
The clean up has commenced, started grouping items ^-^