EEVblab #2 - Are Electronics Hobbyists Useless?

[mrbreeze01]

How about coming to Rhode Island and post your ad and I'll be knocking before the sun comes up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeeeeze, my god what an opportunity!!!   

[mrflibble]

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.

[Simon]

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.

 

[SeanB]

But there is an almost perfect correlation to a score somewhere along the Autistic scale though.

[Simon]

But there is an almost perfect correlation to a score somewhere along the Autistic scale though.

oh dear I can see a new row over who makes the better engineer 

[SeanB]

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.

[miguelvp]

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.

Maybe you should try a cross product instead since you are looking for orthogonality

But it doesn't work with all engineers since some of them actually climb mountains.

[mrflibble]

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.

[Simon]

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.

Very well put indeed. I'm not sure on the terminology and I forget which continent has just decided to abolish the term Asperger's usually your lower level autistics will actually be diagnosed with Asperger's and they can indeed make good engineers. If you take a look at the so-called traditional nerd you will probably find that you are in fact looking at somebody with autism been derided for being a nerd. I think it is now fairly well-known that many of these so-called nerds have actually contributed quite a bit to the technology we use today.

The other thing to bear in mind that autism or Asperger's is not a single diagnosis and co-occurs with a number of other conditions particularly dyslexia but also dyspraxia dyscalculia and a few others I can't remember. Usually one never occurs on its own so it's difficult to just stick a label on somebody.

A few months in to me starting in engineering my new boss suggested I might have dyslexia when he noticed that I was not making just spelling mistakes but mistakes that I was probably not seeing due to a correlation between visual problems and dyslexia which mean that if for example I type 3 "m"'s it is actually hard for me to see how many I have typed this is usually known as visual stress. He was however quite supportive and obtained a little information to help me on my way. Not being one of the old-fashioned types he knew that dyslexia does not mean you're not intelligent and did not treat me any different not that I was diagnosed in any case although my father being dyslexic is pretty telling.

When it was suggested that I do some qualifications I thought oh dear I would love to and I agreed to but I know that my learning experience has not been the best in particular with maths although that was with an impatient teacher in a classroom environment who did not have the time, inclination to help me or see that I was struggling and just put it down to me being dumb. So I arranged and paid for a dyslexia screening to see if there was anything I should know and if they could tell me anything that would help me (remember I said earlier that my biggest strength is knowing my limits). As it happens the person doing the screening looked at me a bit funny and couldn't work out why I thought I might be dyslexic, but this was mainly because it was only the screening and not a full diagnostic assessment which I would also have to pay for myself and is much more expensive than I care to pay, I came out as having a low probability of dyslexia although it was borderline with being some probability and my test also showed not that I can figure out how they work it out that I have a very high IQ as the test is designed to test IQ but not in the sense that most people interpret and I was also not checked for spelling which I had to admit afterwards is worst than I thought. But we did speak for some hours and the person doing the assessment has asperges herself and she said it that in her opinion I probably have an element of asperges which was no surprise at all.

If you look around the net for dyslexia screening tests they will warn that people with a high IQ do not always show up with the correct score for dyslexia as they have developed so-called coping mechanisms not that I'm aware of having developed any myself.

So there you have it, I know that most people at work and some have told me can't work out how I got where I am to be honest I'm surprised myself sometimes not that it is that far but it's much further than some people thought I would (I beat my predecessor our of the QC department, took him 4 years to get from QC to engineering and it took me 3, he just can't help but feel a sense of competition). And it's not just getting as far but actually getting the job done and being useful in the workplace rather than just another bum on another seat making yet more cock ups. But as much as I have a good engineering intuition and grasp some concepts, I am well aware that I need the qualifications and given the time to study the maths on my own and with a good quality text (no ICS Learn shit!) I am slowly getting there I hope. It has been slightly easier than I thought.

I don't know what peoples opinions are of people with so-called learning disabilities, all I know is I am surrounded by people who are supposed to be qualified in totally different fields and even then sometimes I find they can't see the wood for the trees and I can't explain to them what it is they are not seeing. I struggle to understand how some of the simplest electrical concepts I present are seen as extremely complicated even though some of them having being doing basic electrics for years, perhaps I'm overly adapted to having to learn new things all the time and work things out for myself. The most frustrating response I get from fellow engineers is "well I wouldn't understand because I'm not qualified in that" even if you try to explain it to them in baby talk they don't actually want to listen or learn, so it's like i sit one side of the office with my "expertise" and they sit on the other with theirs and they never know when to involve me because they have not the first clue and usually I end up involved when it's a bit late and I hear them complaining about a problem they can't solve.

Only the other day I heard a pair going on about sensors "sourcing" or "sinking" and what on earth did it mean but did they ask ? no, I had to interject and explain and they were very happy for the explanation, but did they think to ask ? no they just said, electrical, can't be any of our business.......

The sad thing is that society and the schooling system does not support or encourage people with so called learning dissabilties, most people just gather up all of their ego, and call them nerds and put them down.

[SeanB]

Simon, well done on the studies, you will get the maths up to some good level eventually. You probably want to go get a university maths book, and do it yourself at your own rate, so that you are more confident at self learning. look for a used copy of Calculus with Analytical Geometry, any old edition will be cheap, and will work for you.

Funny thing is the maths rarely is used by itself, but the foundations of logical thought, reasoning and step by step problem solving will serve you in good stead afterwards. You are already using those, so a little refinement will go down as a very good addition as well.

[tggzzz]

Funny thing is the maths rarely is used by itself,

I used it repeatedly for the first 15-20 years of my commercial engineering career. That included s-plane analysis, z-plane analysis, autocorrelation coding, noise analysis, queueing theory, RF propagation and modulation, CSP, and probably some other things that have slipped my mind.

Fortunately it was rarely necessary for me to go back to first principles - often I could rely on the pictorial shortcuts derived from the fundamental maths.

I acknowledge that many people manage to use intuition that derives from the maths.

But I really don't see how you can do novel engineering without the maths background.

[SeanB]

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.

[tggzzz]

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.
 

However, 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.

[mrflibble]

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.

[Aeon]

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 

You ask for all the skills I have. Unfortunately I dont live in Australia , therefore I dont apply for the job. If someone is doing electronics for a couple of years that are skills that come naturaly because you need them in electronics.  

[tggzzz]

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.

But what exactly is the error between 2 and 3? Casting the problem in another form isn't an answer

The reason for phrasing the problem in the way I did is that I've seen it bite people when doing standard s-plane algebra for frequency domain analysis.

Yes, I fully acknowledge that re-casting the problem is often a very good way of making solid progress! But you have to notice the problem before you can begin to think of recasting it - and that's the relevance to this thread.

[mrflibble]

I will just await the puzzle solution du jour.

[free_electron]

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.
 

However, 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.

[tggzzz]

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.

[miguelvp]

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.

It only proofs Mathematical fallacy

On top of that:
sqrt(a/b) is not always equal to sqrt(a)/sqrt(b)
sqrt(-1) is not a real number is an imaginary one.
finally sqrt have two answers.

[free_electron]

Besides, yes, circuits on the bench do lie

nope. 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 !

[mrflibble]

sqrt(-1) is not a real number is an imaginary one.
finally sqrt have two answers.

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. But as luck would have it no matter what space you pick, it all fails on an inequality similar to the one posted earlier.

Now how the hell did we get from the OP to this?

[SeanB]

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?

[Simon]

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?

Most topics either derail after three pages or keep saying the same things over and over. Take the F TDI discussion I think it ran for over 100 pages but if you take every three you will find that they fully discuss the issue and then it gets repeated another 33+ times.

[Simon]

And if you're wondering where I am at with my maths Teeside University who are providing the HNC course very wisely said that they would like me to have a level III in mathematics or a level III in another technical subject would mean I would also have a level III in mathematics and that if I did not I would have to complete the bridging module they provide.

So I am currently studying at home to ring binders of level III maths. It's not been as bad as I thought but I'm still not sure I would be able to complete a blind test, the more reassuring exercises are those where I can put my answer back into the original equation and verify which I suppose you can do with all of them although it's definitely an accepted method for the more complicated things like simultaneous equations.