Is EEVBlog worth it

[dtmouton]

Wonderful blog.

[langwadt]

you can leave anytime you want

[pqass]

I'm just here for the cat pix.

[isometrik]

To dtmouton: Start your own blog and let's see if you can do better.

[penfold]

The "advice" dispensed by the members of this blog is useless. Rather read credible books on engineering or study at an accredited university than reading the junk "advice" on this blog.

Can you rephrase that, it's causing me a headache. I assume from your ability to post that comment that you are a member, you are advising me to read credible book on engineering or study at an accredited university. Does that mean I should take your advice or not? Perhaps you're instructing me, does that make a difference, are the "instructions" dispensed by members OK to follow and just not the advice?

Does it matter what I study at this accredited university? Does it need to be engineering?

[Tomorokoshi]

The "advice" dispensed by the members of this blog is useless. Rather read credible books on engineering or study at an accredited university than reading the junk "advice" on this blog.

Can you rephrase that, it's causing me a headache. I assume from your ability to post that comment that you are a member, you are advising me to read credible book on engineering or study at an accredited university. Does that mean I should take your advice or not? Perhaps you're instructing me, does that make a difference, are the "instructions" dispensed by members OK to follow and just not the advice?

Does it matter what I study at this accredited university? Does it need to be engineering?

Be careful trying to understand that self-referential recursion of solipsism; for if one achieves it, the universe my very well collapse into a singularity.

[thinkfat]

Valid always and everywhere: you need to know enough about a topic to tell the bull shit from the good shit. Otherwise, someone will sell you an X for a U and you will not even notice. Personally, around here I always find good advice and (try to) give good advice.

[Sal Ammoniac]

The "advice" dispensed by the members of this blog is useless.

I would agree that much of the "information" found on any Internet discussion forum is worthless, but there's also a lot of helpful information to be found as well. Sorting the wheat from the chaff is the hard part.

I would also agree that someone working professionally in the industry probably has other sources of information and knowledge and doesn't need to get answers from Internet forums, but also keep in mind that many of the participants on this forum are amateurs without formal training and the information they find here is often a useful starting point.

[thinkfat]

Complexity is the number-one enemy of high-quality code.

I like that :-)

[gamalot]

I learned a lot in this forum. I also try to help others and I am very happy that I did it sometimes.

[bdunham7]

The "advice" dispensed by the members of this blog is useless. Rather read credible books on engineering or study at an accredited university than reading the junk "advice" on this blog.

Actually I think EEVBlog has the lowest signal-to-noise ratio of any large internet forum I'm aware of.  I've gotten plenty of helpful advice here, and perhaps given a bit too.

I think the point of the LED-circuit discussion went over your head.  Yes, it turns out you can solve it surprisingly accurately compared to Dave's experiment--the one where he went to the trouble of matching the LEDs.  Lots of us know the diode equations and their applications--bias compensation in an audio amplifier for example--but I think most would not bother trying to apply it to such a circuit.  And, in the end, it turns out that the person who had presented the problem had no intention of anyone using it.

The analysis that you had attached to one of your posts, I don't know if it is yours or if you copied it, has an interesting statement.

"Engineering students are taught to make reasonable assumptions when there is missing information."

Is that really acceptable for 'professional engineers'?  Or just for solving academic problems?

And as for your statements on registered and professional engineers, there was a debate on on that long back.  Every country and sometimes states has their own rules on this, but those certifications are typically required only for certain activities.  Except for one hapless Oregon man who the licensing board went after (they lost, eventually) I've not heard of any such requirement for making public comments or YouTube videos.

[CatalinaWOW]

It is too bad that the OP is getting nothing from the EEVBlog.  I admit that I pay little attention to the videos.  While Dave is better than most, I can read much faster than videos present information.  This comment is totally independent of the quality of the content though I have noticed no major bloopers in the videos I have observed.

If the OP is complaining about the forum also, then I suspect that the finger should point back at himself.  I have advanced degrees in engineering, and am retired after a five decade career in the field and find much useful information on the forum.  Some theoretical information, but I would agree that texts are usually a better source.  But a great deal of specific and practical information about specific devices, instruments, repair techniques and sources. 

In addition, the caliber of the people involved in the discussions is far higher than typical in other on line venues.  People here to make trouble, people who have trouble tying their shoelaces and people who have difficulty dealing with other points of view are relatively rare.

Absolutely not useless.

[Sal Ammoniac]

And as for your statements on registered and professional engineers, there was a debate on on that long back.  Every country and sometimes states has their own rules on this, but those certifications are typically required only for certain activities.

I've worked in the field in the US for 35 years, and have known only one EE who was a registered PE. The vast majority of PE's I've known are civil engineers and structural engineers.

[rstofer]

Dave sells video views, simple as that.  If he steps them up to the level of PhDs, the audience shrinks to the point that there is no money in making videos.  The videos need to be of value to beginners.

I like this one: 



Yes, I know there are second order effects to consider but the video presents the essence of how to use op amps.  There is time later to discuss the fine points.

There are a lot of talented people on the forum that keep the conversations on track.  That is the main purpose of the forum; help beginners make things that work.  I suspect many of these helpful people do indeed have formal education - a lot of it!

OP:  Your objections are noted.  Now go find a more appropriate forum for your more advanced status.

[tszaboo]

Rather read credible books on engineering or study at an accredited university than reading the junk "advice" on this blog.

Books and university doesn't teach you, what happens when your IC is out of stock, and you need production happening on Monday. Never seen anything else than ideal opamp on Electronics II, never seen one at digikey. Uni has its place but it doesn't prepare you for the real world. Good luck.

[bdunham7]

I've worked in the field in the US for 35 years, and have known only one EE who was a registered PE. The vast majority of PE's I've known are civil engineers and structural engineers.

Yes, you need the license to put your stamp on plans, where said plans are required to be stamped--and it is mostly state laws that regulate that.  There are PE mechanical engineers as well, for things like refineries and generating plants.  But people designing toasters and automobiles aren't state-regulated, there are other agencies for that.

[dtmouton]

Please show me how a one Ounce PCB can shied a magnetic field with a frequency of 25 kHz. Then I will take you seriously.

[dtmouton]

What's your point?

[dtmouton]

Didn't your university teach you to use commonly-available opamps?

[bdunham7]

What's your point?

You need to quote whoever it is you are responding too (as I have here) otherwise nobody has any idea who or what your reply is directed at.

[Refrigerator]

What's your point?

You need to quote whoever it is you are responding too (as I have here) otherwise nobody has any idea who or what your reply is directed at.

The three consecutive replies from OP make it seem like he's talking to himself 

[xrunner]

Please show me how a one Ounce PCB can shied a magnetic field with a frequency of 25 kHz. Then I will take you seriously.

Let's start off with teaching you to use the forum quotation BB code.

Baby steps, baby steps ...

Code: [Select]

[quote]
This is a quote.
[/quote]


[rstofer]

Didn't your university teach you to use commonly-available opamps?

The 741 op amp was introduced to industry in 1968.  It hadn't filtered down by the time I graduated in '73.  In grad school I worked on digital design and avoided analog with a dedication.  Mostly because the math was a bit** on a slide rule.  The HP 35 calculator wasn't introduced until 1972 and I couldn't afford one until about 1976 when I finished grad school and bought an HP 45.  We did a lot of simplifications in those days simply because the math was untenable.  Large matrix problems weren't all that much fun.

Digital, in the early days of the microcomputer, was a lot more interesting.  With FPGAs, it still is!

I would have to go back to my books for your Field Theory problem and it isn't interesting to me.  It wasn't interesting when I took the class and it isn't interesting now.  What is interesting is whether to use a one, two or three process Finite State Machine.  Each has their good points and I usually choose to use the two process approach.  Other opinions vary...

[dtmouton]

Didn't your university teach you to use commonly-available opamps?

The 741 op amp was introduced to industry in 1968.  It hadn't filtered down by the time I graduated in '73.  In grad school I worked on digital design and avoided analog with a dedication.  Mostly because the math was a bit** on a slide rule.  The HP 35 calculator wasn't introduced until 1972 and I couldn't afford one until about 1976 when I finished grad school and bought an HP 45.  We did a lot of simplifications in those days simply because the math was untenable.  Large matrix problems weren't all that much fun.


Digital, in the early days of the microcomputer, was a lot more interesting.  With FPGAs, it still is!

I would have to go back to my books for your Field Theory problem and it isn't interesting to me.  It wasn't interesting when I took the class and it isn't interesting now.  What is interesting is whether to use a one, two or three process Finite State Machine.  Each has their good points and I usually choose to use the two process approach.  Other opinions vary...

You can look a Dave's video on magnetic shielding for the Field Theory problem.

I used the 741 in 1980 for the first time, programmed a Z80 in 1982, programmed a TMS320C25 in 1989 and love field theory. I've been programming FPGAs since 95 and still have one on my desk right now. I learned Field Theory from Haus and Melcher.

[rsjsouza]

I learned several interesting tidbits here in EEVBlog, and contributed to several other threads.

As others have said, the University will not teach you everything about the intricacies of the trade and much less provide the knowledge across the board on incredibly diverse areas that members routinely contribute here.

Sorry that you are not pleased with your interactions around here, but it is far from such generalizations.