EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: x_marx on September 03, 2022, 04:44:40 pm
-
I have been working as a Design Engineer for a machine manufacturer for like 10 years. I do CAD stuff (I'm a Mechanical Engineer btw) and plant design (mainly machine capacity calculations, layouts and process logic). But, I have always loved CompSci and electronics.
Love tinkering with stuff with my fav being audio DACs. I'm also into LEDs and lighting.
So, I joined an MSc course in Computer Science and learned a lot of C# and zero hardware stuff which I'm not a big fan of. It's too modern for me lol :D
I would rather have C :P and a lot more hardware stuff.
So, for a 'fresher' like me, is it a good idea to go for C+embedded at this stage?
Regards
Max
-
CS (Computer Science) is about software.
EE (Electrical Engineering) is about hardware.
If you want to do programming, then continue with CS, otherwise for electronics and hardware you may want to switch to EE MSc.
-
If you're more into low-level and hardware stuff, EE is probably the way to go here.
CS will definitely be too software, and *modern* software-oriented. And not just for your courses. Beyond that, once you have a MSc in CS, you'll mostly find jobs were you'll be expected to do C#, Java, maybe some Python, maybe some C++ (maybe), or even uh... worse, web development stuff.
Something that, from your short description, you're probably not going to enjoy.
But we're talking about enjoying what you do here. Pure software would probably be a better option if what you care about is finding good paying jobs easily.
-
CS (Computer Science) is about software.
EE (Electrical Engineering) is about hardware.
If you want to do programming, then continue with CS, otherwise for electronics and hardware you may want to switch to EE MSc.
In our Mechanical Engg. course, we had to study C basics along with C graphics and mathematical modelling using C (fast Fourier transforms and stuff). I really loved it so much that I got perfect scores in all of them. My examiners were sceptical about how I achieved coz my scores in other subjects were average. It's that experience that I had me believe I can do well in modern languages.
Since this course is about to finish, I'm not sure I can switch. Also, I have a family and my partner is not currently working. Have to support them financially.
So, I was exploring the idea to brush up on my C and try some embedded dev using C. But, my friends say the barrier of entry in embedded stuff is rather high and the pay is relatively low.
I do not mind the pay part but worry about the barrier of entry part and hence my question.
If you're more into low-level and hardware stuff, EE is probably the way to go here.
CS will definitely be too software, and *modern* software-oriented. And not just for your courses. Beyond that, once you have a MSc in CS, you'll mostly find jobs were you'll be expected to do C#, Java, maybe some Python, maybe some C++ (maybe), or even uh... worse, web development stuff.
Something that, from your short description, you're probably not going to enjoy.
But we're talking about enjoying what you do here. Pure software would probably be a better option if what you care about is finding good paying jobs easily.
Yeah, this course is really modern! We study software engineering, android app development, 'serious game' development using Unity, and C#.
As part of the coursework, I had to learn ASP .Net MVC and it was not that bad. I might learn the Razor pages development to become a proper dev in ASP dot Net 6. But yeah, my passion is elsewhere!
Can I study embedded development part-time and be hopeful of landing a job in that field?
What do you guys think?
-
I'm not going to comment on the absolute probability of getting a job, since I'm too long out of the market. To increase the probability, it is useful to demonstrate your command of both theoretical and practical aspect. Both are necessary, neither is sufficient.
The way to do that is to do a "difficult" home project. Don't simply state, but demonstrate:
- you do more than necessary to get the degree, because you like the subject (and by implication will enjoy working for them). That puts you ahead of most people
- perseverence and achievement
- you can choose projects that aren't easy, but which are possible
- what challenges you set yourself
- what unexpected problems you had when designing, implementing and testing the project
- what you got right
- what you would do differently next time. Looking out for better ways to do things in the future and learning from your experience are valuable attributes
- your honest assessment of the project, good and bad
Note that the choice of the project is up to you. Being able to select realistic "stretch" goals is an important skill.
You'll also have something to talk to the interviewers about - and sometimes it is good to find anything a candidate can talk about!
Good luck and "have fun, safely".
-
I'm not going to comment on the absolute probability of getting a job, since I'm too long out of the market. To increase the probability, it is useful to demonstrate your command of both theoretical and practical aspect. Both are necessary, neither is sufficient.
The way to do that is to do a "difficult" home project. Don't simply state, but demonstrate:
- you do more than necessary to get the degree, because you like the subject (and by implication will enjoy working for them). That puts you ahead of most people
- perseverence and achievement
- you can choose projects that aren't easy, but which are possible
- what challenges you set yourself
- what unexpected problems you had when designing, implementing and testing the project
- what you got right
- what you would do differently next time. Looking out for better ways to do things in the future and learning from your experience are valuable attributes
- your honest assessment of the project, good and bad
Note that the choice of the project is up to you. Being able to select realistic "stretch" goals is an important skill.
You'll also have something to talk to the interviewers about - and sometimes it is good to find anything a candidate can talk about!
Good luck and "have fun, safely".
The only problem I have is the degree is in Computer Science (software-oriented).
But yeah, I'll get on with a suitable project.
BTW, my main project hasn't started yet. I wanted to do something about improving the image recognition algorithms but it seems like a huge ask for a novice like me.
So, I'm thinking of a more electronics-oriented idea. I have always loved working with LEDs (addressable RGB LEDs). So, I'm thinking about developing windows or raspberry pi software that can detect individual LEDs and configure them to display the image or a video that you have in hand. So, you can put multiple led strips into a sort of like in a billboard and the software, with the help of a camera, configures and display the image you have on the 'screen'.
Is it a good start?
-
That 'configure and Play' software sounds interesting, and likely complex.
In 'old days', before COVID lock-down mania, you would find a CONFERENCE, like for game developers etc. which is collosal expensive party-time, (after hours). But you could nurse your drink (tonic water) while schmoozing with folks who, to meet people, will host a reception upstairs, in hotel suite. You might see a sign saying something like:
Apple Developers:. We are currently looking for graphics experts in several locations.
Come to our hotel suite #210 A, for coffee and donuts, 7 am every day, during Conference, we can talk.
That sort of informal hook-ups, that occur at conferences, help to get some good genuine background info, plus folks may help with any nagging professional issues (that most everyday folks don't appreciate).
A fellow here in town, (M.E.) did similar 'plant' work, in San Francisco city high-rise buildings, with their heating and cooling 'plants', some tantamount to complete 'city', in the one building.
I do Inventions (attempted,...lol), which, as originally an EE, interested in writing firmware, I already used to broadened fields, doing embedded code.
But, I've also done physics related areospace and microwave 'specialties', It's a learned tolerance.
As an Inventor, Business involved Tech developer, I've also (had to) navigate things like Office space Landlord / real estate managers. Local police and crime situations sometimes needed attention (unsafe parking lot).
It's been a deliberate process, for sure, to tolerate all these skill sets, outside of basic engineering.
But something like a good Conference, if you have the resources / airplane ticket could help with both professional, and casual boost, to your career.
Any eevblog user can always send PM with questions about Software / Hardware. Thanks
-
The only problem I have is the degree is in Computer Science (software-oriented).
But yeah, I'll get on with a suitable project.
Shrug. I like to have fun with people that think there is an obvious difference between hardware and software. It is easy to provide counterexamples to their statements, and show them it is a very grey area.
I strongly recommend you learn about Finite State Machines (FSMs), and not in the context of compiler front ends. They are a good way of thinking about realtime systems, both in terms of specification and implementation. Learn how to implement them in hardware and in software. That leads to an understanding of how to choose to implement an FSM; frequently part is implemented in hardware and part in software.
Such system partitioning is an essential skill, whether working with low-level analogue signals or telecommunications billing systems.
BTW, my main project hasn't started yet. I wanted to do something about improving the image recognition algorithms but it seems like a huge ask for a novice like me.
Sounds like you are already deciding what isn't practical within the constraints. Excellent. Write that kind of thing down as part of the documentation and discuss it with interviewers.
One of my heroes was Professor Eric Laithwaite at Imperial College. He used to set exams where one question was easy and sufficient get you a pass mark, several were more challenging and could get you a good degree, and one could not be answered adequately in the time available. He expected his undergraduate engineers to be able to determine which questions to avoid. If they couldn't, they wouldn't make good engineers anyway.
So, I'm thinking of a more electronics-oriented idea. I have always loved working with LEDs (addressable RGB LEDs). So, I'm thinking about developing windows or raspberry pi software that can detect individual LEDs and configure them to display the image or a video that you have in hand. So, you can put multiple led strips into a sort of like in a billboard and the software, with the help of a camera, configures and display the image you have on the 'screen'.
Is it a good start?
I don't know; that's your decision :) Doesn't seem like a wrong start :)
You're going to have to determine "low level" timing constraints (e.g. setup and hold times when shoving data into LEDs), and "high level" timing constraints ( e.g. meeting frame rates). You will need to be able to explain how your design guarantees all timing constraints without testing and hoping you've spotted the worst case.
-
BTW, my main project hasn't started yet. I wanted to do something about improving the image recognition algorithms but it seems like a huge ask for a novice like me.
These days, image recognition seems to revolve around Convolutional Neural Networks - software plus other skills. The program costs a bit but I really recommend DeepLizard.com. I finished the Dictionary course yesterday and it answered a LOT of questions. PyImageSearch.com is another even more expensive program but it's got excellent material.
If you're not using Linux, you soon will be...
I believe the future is going to revolve around big data and AI - particularly Deep Neural Networks and CNNs. If I wanted a project to show off, I would do something with the Jetbot and some kind of image based path finding around the kitchen or house (if the wheels will negotiate the carpet). There is already a demo project that does all this but I'm sure there is room for improvement. The idea is to create the network on a PC and somehow port it to the Jetbot. You could probably develop the model on Google Colab which might speed up training.
https://www.amazon.com/Accessories-Wireless-Bluetooth-Recognition-XYGStudy/dp/B07WMZ3KLY (https://www.amazon.com/Accessories-Wireless-Bluetooth-Recognition-XYGStudy/dp/B07WMZ3KLY)
I believe you need to source a 4GB Jetson Nano separately and the price seems to be outrageous at the moment. Even at the Nvidia store, it is marked "Get Quote". I didn't pay anything like the current prices for mine.
There's a bit of linear algebra involved (usually handled by the library) and the preferred language is Python and there are libraries for everything. You can also use the Nvidia SDK and write the project in C++ or Fortran. In any event, it is helpful if your PC has an Nvidia graphics card with a bunch of CUDA units. Not required, but helpful.
You could also do the project in MATLAB.
The Holy Grail is a self-driving car that doesn't crash into Police cars.
You get CS experience in image recognition, AI experience in Convolutional Neural Networks (and image recognition) and embedded experience in making the Jetbot respond to whatever the AI is doing.
Not an inexpensive project.
Maybe a Raspberry Pi will be enough as long as the CNN is already built and just ported over. Or maybe that is overkill. The nice thing is that you could possibly do the entire project on the Pi. It makes a fairly decent workstation. Plan on taking a LOT of photos of proper and improper paths, possibly while driving it around with a wireless PS4 game controller.
Maybe the AI runs on a laptop connected via ethernet to the 'bot. Berkeley Sockets comes to mind...
Search around, there are a bunch of similar projects.
-
Shrug. I like to have fun with people that think there is an obvious difference between hardware and software. It is easy to provide counterexamples to their statements, and show them it is a very grey area.
That depends on the hardware, doesn't it? True, much of what was previously done in pure hardware is now done at least partly in digital (analog radio receiver now done with SDR, etc.) but there are still plenty of areas where true analog design is required. I see plenty of obvious differences.
-
Shrug. I like to have fun with people that think there is an obvious difference between hardware and software. It is easy to provide counterexamples to their statements, and show them it is a very grey area.
That depends on the hardware, doesn't it?
To push the point, only at extremes.
True, much of what was previously done in pure hardware is now done at least partly in digital (analog radio receiver now done with SDR, etc.) but there are still plenty of areas where true analog design is required. I see plenty of obvious differences.
Philosophically...
Photon counting and fA circuits are digital :)
Is a modern x86 class chip hardware or software? (Answers on the back of an envelope in a laboratory notebook please) Ditto an FPGA. Or a 22V10 PLD class device?
Practically...
As you noted above, in many projects a given piece of functionality could be implemented using a variety of radically different techniques. Being able to choose a good combination of technologies is a key skill, which a "pure hardware" or "pure software" person is unlikely to have. That can lead to X deciding Y will have the responsibility for cleaning up the messy edges that it is difficult for X to do cleanly. One example of that is the HP/Intel Itanic processor :)
-
I did a little hardware design contract many years ago. All I had to do was get the hardware working and demonstrate it. There was another contractor responsible for the application code.
Well, that didn't work out! I wound up having to provide device drivers and sample code for the programmer to build against. I doubt that my experience is unique. If you plan to do embedded, you better have your feet on both sides of the river. You will be writing a lot of code. If you're a coder, you will still be expected to understand the User Manual.
-
Hardware != Software, but there is a huge overlap.
You guys are talking about embedded designs and coding, and yes that's a big part of it. But it's not the only part. When I was running the engineering department at our startup we had people designing power systems, thermal management, ESD and EMI mitigation, designing processor cards, FPGAs, ASICs, Stratum-2 clock synchronizers, 1.544 and 44.7 MHz electrical interfaces, optical interfaces from 155 MHz to 10 GHz, Gig E, etc. Some of this was analog, a lot of this was digital, some firmware, and then there was software. Some of the FPGA and ASIC designs had internal state machines, but if so those were a tiny portion of the design.
Everything is not a computer!
But if the OP is considering going into image processing, that's going to be almost exclusively software -- the optical / electrical portion is almost trivial in comparison.
-
Hardware != Software, but there is a huge overlap.
Some Dunning-Krueger candidates believe there is a fundamental difference, and that they can distinguish between them. |O
Such people don't know what is inside a modern x86 processor or an FPGA, amongst many things.
-
Hardware != Software, but there is a huge overlap.
Some Dunning-Krueger candidates believe there is a fundamental difference, and that they can distinguish between them. |O
Such people don't know what is inside a modern x86 processor or an FPGA, amongst many things.
Oh, please do carry on! I'll just watch from the cheap seats.
-
I have a CS degree and I'm currently studying B.Eng. Happy to share experiences.
If you want to program just start programming because that is really the only way to learn. Read, get peer code reviews, improve as you go. Seems like you want to work at a low level. Raspberry Pi is maybe less useful since every hobbyist can fire up the friendly IDE and write C code (or increasingly, Python). Maybe get into Raspberry Pi Pico, where you program in a much more traditional C environment?
-
I have a CS degree and I'm currently studying B.Eng. Happy to share experiences.
If you want to program just start programming because that is really the only way to learn. Read, get peer code reviews, improve as you go. Seems like you want to work at a low level. Raspberry Pi is maybe less useful since every hobbyist can fire up the friendly IDE and write C code (or increasingly, Python). Maybe get into Raspberry Pi Pico, where you program in a much more traditional C environment?
Yes. My youngest son just started for a bachelor's degree and the first thing, on the first 'school' day they work on is programming a Raspberry Pi.
BTW: Much to my amazement and surprise it looks like they won't get any math classes any time soon or maybe none at all. :wtf:
-
Maybe get into Raspberry Pi Pico, where you program in a much more traditional C environment?
Or MicroPython which seems to work really well on the Pico. I don't have a lot of time with it but from my experiments, it seems workable. That Pico is dirt cheap! $7 from Amazon but I thought I bought some for $6
https://www.amazon.com/Raspberry-Pi-Pico-RP2040-microcontroller/dp/B092S2KCV2 (https://www.amazon.com/Raspberry-Pi-Pico-RP2040-microcontroller/dp/B092S2KCV2)
Having WiFi built in is really handy!
-
CS (Computer Science) is about software.
EE (Electrical Engineering) is about hardware.
If you want to do programming, then continue with CS, otherwise for electronics and hardware you may want to switch to EE MSc.
Yep, basically this.
-
CS (Computer Science) is about software.
EE (Electrical Engineering) is about hardware.
If you want to do programming, then continue with CS, otherwise for electronics and hardware you may want to switch to EE MSc.
Yep, basically this.
Except when it isn't.
Even 45 years ago my EE degree had a healthy dose of software, both terms of writing applications for minicomputers, and also for the newfangled 6800 processors. My project was to build a 6800 peripherals for a 6800 based computer, and write the code to act as a terminal concentrator for minicomputer.
Some friends and I returned to visit an open day on the 40th anniversary of our graduation. The courses had just the same delightful mix of hardware and software. The test benches had irrititatingly good Tek scopes, spectrum analysers, etc, and many of the student projects involved robotics.
-
CS (Computer Science) is about software.
EE (Electrical Engineering) is about hardware.
If you want to do programming, then continue with CS, otherwise for electronics and hardware you may want to switch to EE MSc.
Yep, basically this.
Except when it isn't.
Of course. As a general rule though it's true.
It always comes down to the individual course, any strand options chosen, and the school in general.
One schools EE degree may be completely different to another schools, even though they are both accedited the same Washington Accord level internationally.
University of Western Sydney for example have (or had) basically the same frist two years for EE/Civil/Mechanical degrees "just in case" you wanted to change your mind ::)
AFAIK no other Sydney based university EE course makes you take civil engineering classes "just in case".
-
CS (Computer Science) is about software.
EE (Electrical Engineering) is about hardware.
If you want to do programming, then continue with CS, otherwise for electronics and hardware you may want to switch to EE MSc.
Yep, basically this.
Except when it isn't.
Of course. As a general rule though it's true.
It always comes down to the individual course, any strand options chosen, and the school in general.
One schools EE degree may be completely different to another schools, even though they are both accedited the same Washington Accord level internationally.
University of Western Sydney for example have (or had) basically the same frist two years for EE/Civil/Mechanical degrees "just in case" you wanted to change your mind ::)
AFAIK no other Sydney based university EE course makes you take civil engineering classes "just in case".
I gather I was unusual in that I knew what I wanted to get from a university course, and discovered enough to select the right course at the right university. It seems most people aren't like that.
The issue of breadth-vs-depth is an interesting one, with no right/wrong answers. I chose to avoid courses that made you choose, e.g., telecoms engineering vs something else before entering. I thought - and still think - that was ridiculously narrow for an education that should set you up for the next 40 years.
OTOH, I knew I was interested in electronics and computing, so I wasn't interested in anything much more general than that.
On the third hand, I have a relative that is in the final year of a systems engineering course. While I don't know the details, that doesn't seem stupid.
Nowadays I'd choose the life sciences, for the same reason I chose electronics and computing: the fields are at the same stage for both professionals and hackers.
-
Hardware != Software, but there is a huge overlap.
Some Dunning-Krueger candidates believe there is a fundamental difference, and that they can distinguish between them. |O
Such people don't know what is inside a modern x86 processor or an FPGA, amongst many things.
I was going to walk away from this stupidity, but I just can't seem to let it drop. You claim that there is no "fundamental difference" between hardware and software. How far down are you going in order to make this claim? Yes, they are both called "engineering" and both require some common skills, but they diverge rapidly above that level. Are you talking about the activities, or the education?
As for the activity, here are a few design examples from my career, roughly ordered from all hardware to all software (not in time sequence):
- Hearing aid design (audio amplifier, filter, compressor), all analog circuitry
- "Wireless microphone" style radio transmitters and receivers
- EMI design and mitigation
- Switching power system noise analysis and cure in a timeslotted multiplexer
- Acoustic test equipment (some analog, some digital, no software)
- DS1 and DS3 framing, synchronization and switching ASICs (are you calling Verilog "software"?)
- 6800 processor board hardware
- Bootcode (68HC11) for system linecards
- Analysis of digital clock generation methods and time/spectral performance
Sure, some of those things could be done better digitally now, using software, but that's not an argument that there is no difference.
And I agree that a useful engineer should probably get experience in hardware and software, and avoid early specialization (I managed to avoid it my entire career).
-
Hardware != Software, but there is a huge overlap.
Some Dunning-Krueger candidates believe there is a fundamental difference, and that they can distinguish between them. |O
Such people don't know what is inside a modern x86 processor or an FPGA, amongst many things.
I was going to walk away from this stupidity, but I just can't seem to let it drop. You claim that there is no "fundamental difference" between hardware and software. How far down are you going in order to make this claim? Yes, they are both called "engineering" and both require some common skills, but they diverge rapidly above that level. Are you talking about the activities, or the education?
As for the activity, here are a few design examples from my career, roughly ordered from all hardware to all software (not in time sequence):
- Hearing aid design (audio amplifier, filter, compressor), all analog circuitry
- "Wireless microphone" style radio transmitters and receivers
- EMI design and mitigation
- Switching power system noise analysis and cure in a timeslotted multiplexer
- Acoustic test equipment (some analog, some digital, no software)
- DS1 and DS3 framing, synchronization and switching ASICs (are you calling Verilog "software"?)
- 6800 processor board hardware
- Bootcode (68HC11) for system linecards
- Analysis of digital clock generation methods and time/spectral performance
Sure, some of those things could be done better digitally now, using software, but that's not an argument that there is no difference.
And I agree that a useful engineer should probably get experience in hardware and software, and avoid early specialization (I managed to avoid it my entire career).
Overall all you have done is mentioned a few spot examples; you have failed to supply a test that can be used to distinguish between hardware and software. Without such a test the differences are small
Apart from that, you have made many wrong and strange statements...
I've never thought of an electromagnetic field as "hardware"; it is physics! Even then, software is used to mitigate radio EMC problems and some EMI problems.
As someone that wears a hearing aid and expects to be eligible for a cochlear implant in one ear, I a, familiar how much you don't know about hearing aids. My first hearing aids had very limited "programmability"; my current has stunning capabilities partially implemented in "software". Cochlear implant controllers are even more sophisticated.
Is a neural net with all its internal weighting factors hardware or software? Consider Igor Aleksander's WISARD and Tesla's car controllers - especially the "prototype <cough> full self-driving" system.
I'm not familiar with the details of verilog, but VHDL certainly is software by most people's definitions. As wackypedia puts it "The VHSIC Hardware Description Language (VHDL) is a hardware description language (HDL) that can model the behavior and structure of digital systems at multiple levels of abstraction, ranging from the system level down to that of logic gates, for design entry, documentation, and verification purposes. ... The key advantage of VHDL, when used for systems design, is that it allows the behavior of the required system to be described (modeled) and verified (simulated) before synthesis tools translate the design into real hardware (gates and wires). ... VHDL is a dataflow language". To aid that, VHDL has many attributes not associated with hardware, e.g. constructs to create/read/write files in an operating system.
As for 6800s, why not consder the contemporary AMD2900 family where microcode is a key implementation concept. Is the microcode hardware or software?
For a more modern example, consider Intel x86 processors from the P6 onwards. How do you think Intel changes the operation of its processors in installed systems? Is Intel Microcode hardware or software? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Microcode
If you think x86 processors are hardware, how do they, when powered down, detect and respond to "wake on LAN" packets to apply power to themselves to start operating again.
Analysis of clocks and time/spectral performance is no more hardware than systems modelling.
-
Moving goalposts again...
In the end you can apply 'engineering skills' (=define the problem, split in sub-problems and find solutions to each sub-problem) to every problem out there. But that doesn't mean a good hardware engineer is a good software engineer or a good chemical engineer by definition. Or your goal is to be a jack of all trades, master at none.
The reality is that there are many fields you can specialise in but acquiring the necessary knowledge takes time to learn and time is limited for everyone. So you have to pick your areas of expertise carefully. In the end you can't know everything up to an expert level.
During the past decade I have been involved in various projects dealing with time & frequency transfer. I've had the pleasure to work with various people that have devoted their careers (or may I say: lifes) to this subject. They are pioneers in their field and extremely knowledgeable. But they know sh*t about software engineering.
-
Moving goalposts again...
In the end you can apply 'engineering skills' (=define the problem, split in sub-problems and find solutions to each sub-problem) to every problem out there. But that doesn't mean a good hardware engineer is a good software engineer or a good chemical engineer by definition. Or your goal is to be a jack of all trades, master at none.
Sometimes it is useful to explicitly move the goalposts :)
There is a career decision that most people have to make: whether to be a jack of all trades and master of none, or whether to be the master of a niche. Either choice is valid, each has obvious benefits and risks.
My decision was to be more towards the jack of all trades, but with some deep knowledge in a few areas. That way there's more opportunity to have fun and act as a cross-pollinator, and less chance of being frozen out because your niche has evaporated.
The reality is that there are many fields you can specialise in but acquiring the necessary knowledge takes time to learn and time is limited for everyone. So you have to pick your areas of expertise carefully. In the end you can't know everything up to an expert level.
A key decision is what not to invest time in learning. In software I've managed to avoid a lot of me-too technologies (e.g. Delphi, C#, any web framework) and be an early adopter of useful technologies (assembler, C, Smalltalk, Objective-C, Java).
Making those choices was possible because I had passing knowledge of many topics, e.g. functional programming, various "AI" languages, etc.
During the past decade I have been involved in various projects dealing with time & frequency transfer. I've had the pleasure to work with various people that have devoted their careers (or may I say: lifes) to this subject. They are pioneers in their field and extremely knowledgeable. But they know sh*t about software engineering.
I know exactly what you mean!
In order to make products it is necessary to have a team. The team members should have different personalities and capabilities and weaknesses, so that each person's weaknesses are covered by another person's strengths.
-
I was going to walk away from this stupidity, but I just can't seem to let it drop. You claim that there is no "fundamental difference" between hardware and software. How far down are you going in order to make this claim? Yes, they are both called "engineering" and both require some common skills, but they diverge rapidly above that level. Are you talking about the activities, or the education?
As for the activity, here are a few design examples from my career, roughly ordered from all hardware to all software (not in time sequence):
- Hearing aid design (audio amplifier, filter, compressor), all analog circuitry
- "Wireless microphone" style radio transmitters and receivers
- EMI design and mitigation
- Switching power system noise analysis and cure in a timeslotted multiplexer
- Acoustic test equipment (some analog, some digital, no software)
- DS1 and DS3 framing, synchronization and switching ASICs (are you calling Verilog "software"?)
- 6800 processor board hardware
- Bootcode (68HC11) for system linecards
- Analysis of digital clock generation methods and time/spectral performance
Sure, some of those things could be done better digitally now, using software, but that's not an argument that there is no difference.
And I agree that a useful engineer should probably get experience in hardware and software, and avoid early specialization (I managed to avoid it my entire career).
Overall all you have done is mentioned a few spot examples; you have failed to supply a test that can be used to distinguish between hardware and software. Without such a test the differences are small
I am sad that you don't seem to grasp the essence of our disagreement. "Failed to supply a test"?? Who says I need to? I gave you examples and if you can't admit that some are examples of hardware design, some of software design, and some a mix, then I have to assume that you are deliberately arguing in bad faith (I won't suggest DK, even though you did.)
Apart from that, you have made many wrong and strange statements...
I've never thought of an electromagnetic field as "hardware"; it is physics! Even then, software is used to mitigate radio EMC problems and some EMI problems.
The EM field isn't hardware, but the circuitry that generates and receives them is. And so what if software can be used in the analysis? It may be useful, but it isn't fundamental. If your criterion is: "If software can be used in the process then it's a software design." I'm afraid that we can probably stop here. But I continue...
As someone that wears a hearing aid and expects to be eligible for a cochlear implant in one ear, I a, familiar how much you don't know about hearing aids. My first hearing aids had very limited "programmability"; my current has stunning capabilities partially implemented in "software". Cochlear implant controllers are even more sophisticated.
You have no idea about how much I know about hearing aids. Bear in mind that my work on them was back in the 1980's, but even then we were working with cochlear implant researchers. And again, so what if modern hearing aids now use software? Before I quit that job we were starting to look at DSP signal processing in HAs (but the tech wasn't quite ready for practical consumer application.) The fact remains that those designs were fully analog. No software in that hardware.
Is a neural net with all its internal weighting factors hardware or software? Consider Igor Aleksander's WISARD and Tesla's car controllers - especially the "prototype <cough> full self-driving" system.
Irrelevant. We can both produce many examples of hardware/software hybrids. I never claimed otherwise
I'm not familiar with the details of verilog, but VHDL certainly is software by most people's definitions. As wackypedia puts it "The VHSIC Hardware Description Language (VHDL) is a hardware description language (HDL) that can model the behavior and structure of digital systems at multiple levels of abstraction, ranging from the system level down to that of logic gates, for design entry, documentation, and verification purposes. ... The key advantage of VHDL, when used for systems design, is that it allows the behavior of the required system to be described (modeled) and verified (simulated) before synthesis tools translate the design into real hardware (gates and wires). ... VHDL is a dataflow language". To aid that, VHDL has many attributes not associated with hardware, e.g. constructs to create/read/write files in an operating system.
Again. irrelevant. Some might call Verilog or VHDL software, but the resulting design implementation is hardware. This hardware may run software, but so what? Anyway, I put the Verilog example closer to the "software" end of the continuum.
As for 6800s, why not consder the contemporary AMD2900 family where microcode is a key implementation concept. Is the microcode hardware or software?
For a more modern example, consider Intel x86 processors from the P6 onwards. How do you think Intel changes the operation of its processors in installed systems? Is Intel Microcode hardware or software? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Microcode
If you think x86 processors are hardware, how do they, when powered down, detect and respond to "wake on LAN" packets to apply power to themselves to start operating again.
Microcode? Irrelevant. It's more firmware than software but I don't care what you call it. By the way, I did the 6800 design in 1976. Why is a contemporary design significant to your argument? And why do you keep bring up microprocessors? It's a fact that micro design is a combination of hardware and software (sort of), and that has never been in dispute.
"Wake on LAN"?? So that section isn't actually powered down. Do you even understand what is going on? And of course they're hardware, running some sort of program. Do you think that software runs on unpowered nothingness?
Analysis of clocks and time/spectral performance is no more hardware than systems modelling.
That was kind of my point, and it should have been obvious (remember, I said "ordered list, from hardware to software"?) The resulting designs went into ASICs, implemented as registers and gates, no software involved. And software (some I wrote, others I bought and used) was used to analyze and develop the designs.
Analysis is part of the design process, and sometimes it involves software. Other times it's pencil and paper, and perhaps a calculator. But the resulting design is often hardware, not software.
If you are merely saying that engineers often use software in the design process then just say that and I will agree. But that's not what you are saying and apparently not what you believe.
The more I think about it I fear that you have in bad faith lured me into a stupid argument. Unless you can bring forth a semi-cogent response I'm going to let it drop for now.
[edit: fixed one missing quote tag]
-
I gather I was unusual in that I knew what I wanted to get from a university course, and discovered enough to select the right course at the right university. It seems most people aren't like that.
I don't know what's it like in the UK, but Australia is VERY different to say the US system.
Generally speaking, the majority of kids who go to university in Australia:
1) Pick one that is in their city.
2) Live at home with their parents. The US "dorm" system isn't a thing here, it really only for overseas students who stay on campus. Hence university choice might be based on ease of access to their parents home.
3) Hardly ever think about picking the "best" university or course from around the country. Hardly anyone ever leaves their city let alone state to study.
And given our much smaller population and hence far fewer universities to pick from, "you get what you get and you don't get upset".
Has changed a bit now with the whole online thing.
-
I gather I was unusual in that I knew what I wanted to get from a university course, and discovered enough to select the right course at the right university. It seems most people aren't like that.
I don't know what's it like in the UK, but Australia is VERY different to say the US system.
Generally speaking, the majority of kids who go to university in Australia:
1) Pick one that is in their city.
2) Live at home with their parents. The US "dorm" system isn't a thing here, it really only for overseas students who stay on campus. Hence university choice might be based on ease of access to their parents home.
3) Hardly ever think about picking the "best" university or course from around the country. Hardly anyone ever leaves their city let alone state to study.
And given our much smaller population and hence far fewer universities to pick from, "you get what you get and you don't get upset".
Has changed a bit now with the whole online thing.
In the UK, as far as I can make out, there is little tendency to stay at home.
- the distances are (of course) much smaller, so even if in a "different part" of the country it is still practical to go home for the weekend
- usualliy the first year is in a university dorm, other years are in digs with a landlady, or more usually in a shared
house pit with other students - whether or not students do pick good courses/unis is open to question. My daughter used to go around doing university outreach, and a depressing number of kids/parents thought that since all A-levels are (nominally) equivalent, so all universities and courses are equivalent
Certainly my daughter regarded going to uni as being an excellent way of getting away from the "parental units". Mind you, she was unusual. I'd taken her backpacking in India in her early teens, so I wasn't completely surprised when (between school and uni) she told me "dad, I've bought a ticket for 6 months in Australia" - and self-financed 6 months up the east coast and down through Alice Springs to Melbourne. Great kid, and we still see each other very often.
-
... something impenetrable due to fouled up use of quotes ....
It appears that you have one very clear idea of what software is and isn't, but aren't prepared to indicate what that might be other than by a few poorly chosen spot examples.
When presented with an "awkward example" you also introduce another term, firmware. You then use it in a way that not only contradicts your other statements, but also doesn't fit with the commonly understood meaning of the term, viz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware That indicates you don't understand what microcode is, despite having been given one reference. Here's another even clearer reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code#Relationship_to_microcode
Hearing aids have evolved very considerably in the 35 years since you were involved in research into cochlear implants. Their capabilities are astounding.
You stated "Some might call Verilog or VHDL software, but the resulting design implementation is hardware." So, do you regard VHDL/Verilog code as hardware or software? How is that fundamentally different to C running in hardware?
Do you realise that modern x86 processors all run Minix internally? Or that they way they implement x86 machine instructions is changed after installation, especially when bugs are found? So, is an x86 chip hardware or software?
-
I'm finding lots of good things in this thread to enjoy - Dunning-Kruger included.
I'm blaming the software-hardware simplification as a language problem - all sorts of false dichotomies ensue.
I imagine (in the UK) that the ratio going to a local university or studying farther a field is stable, not high, possibly increasing.
I agree, if it has been suggested, the UK university student may not be a wise purchaser of their instruction - and the UK university consists of departmental silos that struggle to offer multidisciplinary interdisciplinary options.
My limited experience includes two bachelor degrees (1992, 2017) - the second as a home student.
-
I'm finding lots of good things in this thread to enjoy - Dunning-Kruger included.
I'm blaming the software-hardware simplification as a language problem - all sorts of false dichotomies ensue.
False dichotomies do indeed ensue :)
But is it "merely" a language problem, or is it caused/perpetuated by a lack of breadth and/or only having shallow understanding?
Does the language cause the problem or reflect the problem?
IMHO the starting point is the silo mentality, which is compounded by lack of breadth. The silo mentality itself has several causes.
-
In the UK, as far as I can make out, there is little tendency to stay at home.
Pretty much, with one big exception - London. There are a lot of people going to places like Imperial and UCL who live at home. Even if you don't live at home, you are probably commuting a considerable distance to college each day at those places. They have very little student accommodation of their own, and anything nearby is fearfully expensive.
-
If you think x86 processors are hardware, how do they, when powered down, detect and respond to "wake on LAN" packets to apply power to themselves to start operating again.
Well, they obviously aren't powered down - they are in a low-power state, presumably with the main processing stuff turned off. But, not knowing the internals of an x86 I am intrigued. How do they do it?
AFAIK there are a couple of ways:
1. They don't - the RTL whatever chip causes an interrupt which wakes the CPU (or perhaps just dabs the 'wake up' soft button).
2. Some hardware bitstream monitor, no software involved (except for configuring).
3. The (not too secret now) separate onboard management processor does it all.
-
In the UK, as far as I can make out, there is little tendency to stay at home.
Pretty much, with one big exception - London. There are a lot of people going to places like Imperial and UCL who live at home. Even if you don't live at home, you are probably commuting a considerable distance to college each day at those places. They have very little student accommodation of their own, and anything nearby is fearfully expensive.
I lived on the very edge of London (there were iron tax posts (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3377825,-0.3047557,3a,15y,186.79h,86.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgvt_W3ApNlRLI35MA6iYmg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in common land indicating that!). I didn't even look at the very good courses in IC or UCL because it would have been sensible for me to stay at home.
-
If you think x86 processors are hardware, how do they, when powered down, detect and respond to "wake on LAN" packets to apply power to themselves to start operating again.
Well, they obviously aren't powered down - they are in a low-power state, presumably with the main processing stuff turned off. But, not knowing the internals of an x86 I am intrigued. How do they do it?
AFAIK there are a couple of ways:
1. They don't - the RTL whatever chip causes an interrupt which wakes the CPU (or perhaps just dabs the 'wake up' soft button).
2. Some hardware bitstream monitor, no software involved (except for configuring).
3. The (not too secret now) separate onboard management processor does it all.
I presume, without having bothered to verify it, that the "secret" processor running Minix does it. Either way, it is sufficient to blow the simplisitic "it is obvious that x86 chips are hardware" concept out of the water. (That plus the behaviour modified after installation, for fixing "inappropriate behaviour")
It is all shades of grey, with no clear distinction between hardware and software :)
-
In the UK, as far as I can make out, there is little tendency to stay at home.
Pretty much, with one big exception - London. There are a lot of people going to places like Imperial and UCL who live at home. Even if you don't live at home, you are probably commuting a considerable distance to college each day at those places. They have very little student accommodation of their own, and anything nearby is fearfully expensive.
I lived on the very edge of London (there were iron tax posts (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3377825,-0.3047557,3a,15y,186.79h,86.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgvt_W3ApNlRLI35MA6iYmg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in common land indicating that!). I didn't even look at the very good courses in IC or UCL because it would have been sensible for me to stay at home.
I went to UCL and about half my friends there lived at home. I have no idea how representative that is, but people I know who went to other universities were pretty much amongst 100% people living away from home. So, even one group being 50% home students seemed like a big contrast. That was in the 70s. Costs have risen faster in London than elsewhere, to I assume the percentage of home students may have risen. I lived in with my parents in Enfield, and commuted about an hour each way.
We now live in a village near York. My son is currently at York Uni, and drives in each day. I don't think he knows anyone else living at home, and he can me sure only a handful of undergrads drive into college. Even though we are only about 8 miles from the uni he was going to live in a hall of residence, because wifey through it might increase his independence. COVID stopped that in his first year, and he has settled into spending the whole 4 years at home.
-
In the UK, as far as I can make out, there is little tendency to stay at home.
Pretty much, with one big exception - London. There are a lot of people going to places like Imperial and UCL who live at home. Even if you don't live at home, you are probably commuting a considerable distance to college each day at those places. They have very little student accommodation of their own, and anything nearby is fearfully expensive.
I lived on the very edge of London (there were iron tax posts (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3377825,-0.3047557,3a,15y,186.79h,86.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgvt_W3ApNlRLI35MA6iYmg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in common land indicating that!). I didn't even look at the very good courses in IC or UCL because it would have been sensible for me to stay at home.
I went to UCL and about half my friends there lived at home. I have no idea how representative that is, but people I know who went to other universities were pretty much amongst 100% people living away from home. So, even one group being 50% home students seemed like a big contrast. That was in the 70s. Costs have risen faster in London than elsewhere, to I assume the percentage of home students may have risen. I lived in with my parents in Enfield, and commuted about an hour each way.
We now live in a village near York. My son is currently at York Uni, and drives in each day. I don't think he knows anyone else living at home, and he can me sure only a handful of undergrads drive into college. Even though we are only about 8 miles from the uni he was going to live in a hall of residence, because wifey through it might increase his independence. COVID stopped that in his first year, and he has settled into spending the whole 4 years at home.
I was at uni in the mid 70s. The thought of an hour commuting on the tube was enough to discourage me from applying for a job at the Hirst Research Centre in Wembley!
A relative is living at home while going to Nottingham uni. That decision was nothing to do with covid, but I suspect was more of a delayed action subtle side effect of having a sibling die of leukaemia. Covid meant he took a year off university, which was almost certainly a sensible decision.
-
The thought of an hour commuting on the tube was enough to discourage me from applying for a job at the Hirst Research Centre in Wembley!
That discouraged you, and not the thought of working at Hirst? Weird. ;)
-
The thought of an hour commuting on the tube was enough to discourage me from applying for a job at the Hirst Research Centre in Wembley!
That discouraged you, and not the thought of working at Hirst? Weird. ;)
Nice snark :)
The milk round made me realise why I didn't want to work for GEC. Hirst wasn't the "normal" GEC, but was still very gloomy internally! Not a difficult decision to make.
-
The thought of an hour commuting on the tube was enough to discourage me from applying for a job at the Hirst Research Centre in Wembley!
That discouraged you, and not the thought of working at Hirst? Weird. ;)
Nice snark :)
The milk round made me realise why I didn't want to work for GEC. Hirst wasn't the "normal" GEC, but was still very gloomy internally! Not a difficult decision to make.
There were several pure research operations around GEC, but none of them were that much different from working in the other GEC operations. They all relied on blood sucking the government, only interested in solid commercially oriented work when there was no alternative.
-
At our local private university, per SEMESTER fees are:
$26,000 Tuition
$ 1,400 Medical Insurance (may be optional if student covered by parents)
$ 7,000 Housing
=========
$34,400 (give or take, probably have to add a few thousand for other expenses and student fees)
Times 10 semesters for a EE => $344,000 !!!
There are stipends that may reduce the number but it is still a staggering number. Grad school at a more distant location is priced about the same. Some Master's can be completed in just 3 semesters so call it $100,000.
It is far better to take the first 4 semesters at a community college and of course it is better to live at home, if it's possible.
My education was essentially free. The Veteran's Administration paid for my undergrad and my employer paid for grad school. This was a LONG time ago!
-
... something impenetrable due to fouled up use of quotes ....
It appears that you have one very clear idea of what software is and isn't, but aren't prepared to indicate what that might be other than by a few poorly chosen spot examples.
When presented with an "awkward example" you also introduce another term, firmware. You then use it in a way that not only contradicts your other statements, but also doesn't fit with the commonly understood meaning of the term, viz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware That indicates you don't understand what microcode is, despite having been given one reference. Here's another even clearer reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code#Relationship_to_microcode
Hearing aids have evolved very considerably in the 35 years since you were involved in research into cochlear implants. Their capabilities are astounding.
You stated "Some might call Verilog or VHDL software, but the resulting design implementation is hardware." So, do you regard VHDL/Verilog code as hardware or software? How is that fundamentally different to C running in hardware?
Do you realise that modern x86 processors all run Minix internally? Or that they way they implement x86 machine instructions is changed after installation, especially when bugs are found? So, is an x86 chip hardware or software?
I had *one* missing quote tag, and just fixed it. Perhaps you will be capable of penetrating it now?
Why do you keep bringing up processors? Do you think that processor design is the only remaining field in EE? Of course they run software, and contain embedded code of some sort. Many of the chip designers probably wrote the embedded stuff. You would win this argument if I were claiming otherwise -- but I never have. A modern engineer should probably know something about software, and many engineering tasks and designs will require it.
Go ahead and quibble about the definitions of microcode, firmware, and software, or the evolution of hearing aid technology. These are irrelevant to the actual argument, and you dragging red herrings across the discussion only tells me that you (at best) don't understand the argument.
Let's back way up. You have repeatedly claimed that there is no obvious difference between hardware and software:
I like to have fun with people that think there is an obvious difference between hardware and software.
When I provide some obvious cases, as well as some gray-area ones, you insult, hand-wave, and present irrelevant examples.
So here's another example: You need a Colpitts oscillator. So you design one. One transistor (or two, if you buffer it), an inductor, three or four capacitors, and a few resistors. This is a hardware circult, probably a part of a larger design, but perhaps not. There is no software content. No programming required. No digital logic. You don't even need to use a computer in the design process.
My position is that some electronic designs do not involve software. Nothing more. *Using* software during the design process does not make the design any less of a hardware-only design. Designing a board where there is a component which runs software that someone else has written does not make that board design task a software design. If you actually write the code, or need to understand the code in order to do the design then you are engaging in software as well as hardware design.
Verilog is a *Hardware* Description Language. The Verilog simulator/compiler/etc. is software. The final design is hardware, which may or may not contain microcode or run software. If the final design consists of just an internal oscillator, a counter and eventually blinks an external LED then this is a hardware design. The fact that software was involved in the design process is irrelevant.
Back to the OP's situation: In Electronics Engineering you are sometimes an independent designer, but usually you are part of a team. Knowing software is usually a very good thing, and probably required for many jobs. Starting with a software background and then moving into hardware requires a new set of skills and knowledge, and the details depends a lot on the type of hardware design you wish to do. I'm speaking of the work and the skills required, not how you get there.
-
Why do you keep bringing up processors? Do you think that processor design is the only remaining field in EE? Of course they run software, and contain embedded code of some sort. Many of the chip designers probably wrote the embedded stuff. You would win this argument if I were claiming otherwise -- but I never have. A modern engineer should probably know something about software, and many engineering tasks and designs will require it.
You continue to miss the point. I use the implemention of modern processors to demonstrate that there is no clear distinction between hardware and software.
Go ahead and quibble about the definitions of microcode, firmware, and software, or the evolution of hearing aid technology. These are irrelevant to the actual argument, and you dragging red herrings across the discussion only tells me that you (at best) don't understand the argument.
No, the definitions and distinctions are central to the argument. They clearly demonstrate that there is a graded continuum between something that is obviously "pure" hardware such as a colpitts oscillator and something that is obviously pure software such as a telecoms billing system.
That graded continuum means there is no clear distinction between hardware and software.
... strawman arguments omitted ...
Verilog is a *Hardware* Description Language.
Your understanding of VHDL (and Verilog and others) is limited. Hardware description is part of VHDL and one thing it is used for. There are other things it is used for, as exemplified by non-synthesisable programs and operating system file manipulation.
VHDL behavioural models are akin to C programs; both are compiled to primitives. Structural models are akin to macro assemblers; they expand the models to primitives.
The Verilog simulator/compiler/etc. is software. The final design is hardware, which may or may not contain microcode or run software. If the final design consists of just an internal oscillator, a counter and eventually blinks an external LED then this is a hardware design.
Look deeper. The final designs are all analogue voltages, electron flow and electromagnetic fields, to which we assign some meaning. With the exception of photon counting amd femto-amp circuits, all circuits are analogue (I exaggerate a little, to make the point). So-called "digital ICs" are actually analogue circuits in which voltages within certain ranges are interpreted as digital signals. Failure to understand that and deal with it leads to specialists in "signal integrity" being able to make a good living.
So, is an x86 processor hardware or software?
Is an IC hardware or software? Does the answer change if the IC is an MCU? Why?
Is an FPGA hardware or software? In what way is that fundamentally different to an embedded MCU?
The fact that software was involved in the design process is irrelevant.
I have never claimed that software being involved in the design process was relevant. You were the one that introduced that kind of concept.
-
So, is an x86 processor hardware or software?
Is an IC hardware or software? Does the answer change if the IC is an MCU? Why?
Is an FPGA hardware or software? In what way is that fundamentally different to an embedded MCU?
Wouldn't the answer depend on what you're going to do with them? If you're making one run Windows then clearly it is software. But if you're trying to create a motherboard on which to stick them then clearly that's hardware. You can be a wiz at DDR5 layout and barely able to write a one-line hello.bat, and similarly be able to implement some adjacent row snooping algorithm and yet be unable to identify the right DIMM slot to plug one into.
-
[more of the same, from both of us]
I think we're shooting past each other, and you seem to be assuming ridiculously fundamental ignorance on my part.
I would enjoy continuing this friendly debate, but this probably isn't the thread for it.
-
So, is an x86 processor hardware or software?
Is an IC hardware or software? Does the answer change if the IC is an MCU? Why?
Is an FPGA hardware or software? In what way is that fundamentally different to an embedded MCU?
Wouldn't the answer depend on what you're going to do with them? If you're making one run Windows then clearly it is software. But if you're trying to create a motherboard on which to stick them then clearly that's hardware. You can be a wiz at DDR5 layout and barely able to write a one-line hello.bat, and similarly be able to implement some adjacent row snooping algorithm and yet be unable to identify the right DIMM slot to plug one into.
I don't think the use matters.
FPGA are blank until made useful by code written in an HDL. MCUs blank until made useful by code written in C. X86s are the name of our lives.
FSMs can be created in pure software (e.g. telecom systems) or pure hardware (e.g. offshore oil rigs using hydraulic logic) or programes that configure blank hardware,or a combination of all techniques.
That principle is not limited to FSMs, of course.
There is no easily defendable black and white distinction between hardware and software; it is a gray continuum.
-
[more of the same, from both of us]
I think we're shooting past each other, and you seem to be assuming ridiculously fundamental ignorance on my part.
I would enjoy continuing this friendly debate, but this probably isn't the thread for it.
The relevance is limited to helping budding engineers realise that labels unhelpfully and incorrectly partition design concepts and implementations.
The earlier and more they think in general terms, the better for their career. Anything that prods people to discard unhelpful concepts is to be welcomed.
-
The relevance is limited to helping budding engineers realise that labels unhelpfully and incorrectly partition design concepts and implementations.
The earlier and more they think in general terms, the better for their career. Anything that prods people to discard unhelpful concepts is to be welcomed.
But to think clearly about a system / problem / solution, you need to be able to analyze and recognize the fundamental essence as well as the details. We partition and categorize (label) things so we can best find the optimum interconnections (I'm not talking about wires here), and overall structure.
You saying, essentially, "we can't call this hardware because, hey, look over there, someone did something similar with software!, or "there's 'software' inside that component" is not being helpful.
Of course we should consider all the tools in the box when we are approaching a design -- hardware, software, etc. -- and usually it's a mix. But first you must understand the thing, and appropriate labels can be essential to that understanding. Yes, you can also trap yourself into a poorly thought-out solution with improper labeling, but I submit that that the labeling is usually an effect, not a cause.
-
The relevance is limited to helping budding engineers realise that labels unhelpfully and incorrectly partition design concepts and implementations.
The earlier and more they think in general terms, the better for their career. Anything that prods people to discard unhelpful concepts is to be welcomed.
But to think clearly about a system / problem / solution, you need to be able to analyze and recognize the fundamental essence as well as the details. We partition and categorize (label) things so we can best find the optimum interconnections (I'm not talking about wires here), and overall structure.
You saying, essentially, "we can't call this hardware because, hey, look over there, someone did something similar with software!, or "there's 'software' inside that component" is not being helpful.
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying don't be constrained by needlessly structuring your thinking around a bogus split between hardware and software.
Yes, that does happen.it is a variant of Conway's Law, viz
Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure.
— Melvin E. Conway
As I recounted, during one job interview the HRDroid needed to pigeonhole me as either a hardware engineer exclusive-or a software engineer, because that dictated the part of the organisation I would work in.
I declined to answer, and he was stymied. I didn't take the offered job!
Of course we should consider all the tools in the box when we are approaching a design -- hardware, software, etc. -- and usually it's a mix. But first you must understand the thing, and appropriate labels can be essential to that understanding. Yes, you can also trap yourself into a poorly thought-out solution with improper labeling, but I submit that that the labeling is usually an effect, not a cause.
-
You saying, essentially, "we can't call this hardware because, hey, look over there, someone did something similar with software!, or "there's 'software' inside that component" is not being helpful.
No, I'm not saying that.
If you like, I can show the quotes where you at least strongly implied that.
But let's chalk this up to a misunderstanding in communication, not disagreement on fundamental principles. These days I'm designing RF hardware that runs software, and I spend way more time writing the software -- because that's the best mix for the task.
-
That 'configure and Play' software sounds interesting, and likely complex.
In 'old days', before COVID lock-down mania, you would find a CONFERENCE, like for game developers etc. which is collosal expensive party-time, (after hours). But you could nurse your drink (tonic water) while schmoozing with folks who, to meet people, will host a reception upstairs, in hotel suite. You might see a sign saying something like:
Apple Developers:. We are currently looking for graphics experts in several locations.
Come to our hotel suite #210 A, for coffee and donuts, 7 am every day, during Conference, we can talk.
That sort of informal hook-ups, that occur at conferences, help to get some good genuine background info, plus folks may help with any nagging professional issues (that most everyday folks don't appreciate).
A fellow here in town, (M.E.) did similar 'plant' work, in San Francisco city high-rise buildings, with their heating and cooling 'plants', some tantamount to complete 'city', in the one building.
I do Inventions (attempted,...lol), which, as originally an EE, interested in writing firmware, I already used to broadened fields, doing embedded code.
But, I've also done physics related areospace and microwave 'specialties', It's a learned tolerance.
As an Inventor, Business involved Tech developer, I've also (had to) navigate things like Office space Landlord / real estate managers. Local police and crime situations sometimes needed attention (unsafe parking lot).
It's been a deliberate process, for sure, to tolerate all these skill sets, outside of basic engineering.
But something like a good Conference, if you have the resources / airplane ticket could help with both professional, and casual boost, to your career.
Any eevblog user can always send PM with questions about Software / Hardware. Thanks
Thanks for the chat. I need to do some digging then!
-
The only problem I have is the degree is in Computer Science (software-oriented).
But yeah, I'll get on with a suitable project.
Shrug. I like to have fun with people that think there is an obvious difference between hardware and software. It is easy to provide counterexamples to their statements, and show them it is a very grey area.
I strongly recommend you learn about Finite State Machines (FSMs), and not in the context of compiler front ends. They are a good way of thinking about realtime systems, both in terms of specification and implementation. Learn how to implement them in hardware and in software. That leads to an understanding of how to choose to implement an FSM; frequently part is implemented in hardware and part in software.
Such system partitioning is an essential skill, whether working with low-level analogue signals or telecommunications billing systems.
BTW, my main project hasn't started yet. I wanted to do something about improving the image recognition algorithms but it seems like a huge ask for a novice like me.
Sounds like you are already deciding what isn't practical within the constraints. Excellent. Write that kind of thing down as part of the documentation and discuss it with interviewers.
One of my heroes was Professor Eric Laithwaite at Imperial College. He used to set exams where one question was easy and sufficient get you a pass mark, several were more challenging and could get you a good degree, and one could not be answered adequately in the time available. He expected his undergraduate engineers to be able to determine which questions to avoid. If they couldn't, they wouldn't make good engineers anyway.
So, I'm thinking of a more electronics-oriented idea. I have always loved working with LEDs (addressable RGB LEDs). So, I'm thinking about developing windows or raspberry pi software that can detect individual LEDs and configure them to display the image or a video that you have in hand. So, you can put multiple led strips into a sort of like in a billboard and the software, with the help of a camera, configures and display the image you have on the 'screen'.
Is it a good start?
I don't know; that's your decision :) Doesn't seem like a wrong start :)
You're going to have to determine "low level" timing constraints (e.g. setup and hold times when shoving data into LEDs), and "high level" timing constraints ( e.g. meeting frame rates). You will need to be able to explain how your design guarantees all timing constraints without testing and hoping you've spotted the worst case.
IIRC, I have heard about the FSM but cannot pinpoint the context!
I need to do some research!
Reg. the constraints:
Yeah, its one of the skills I have learnt the hard way as a mechanical design engineer but still, I do aim for the stars sometimes and land on the moon :P
Reg. the project:
Thanks, I need to re-learn C or study python to do that I guess.
-
BTW, my main project hasn't started yet. I wanted to do something about improving the image recognition algorithms but it seems like a huge ask for a novice like me.
These days, image recognition seems to revolve around Convolutional Neural Networks - software plus other skills. The program costs a bit but I really recommend DeepLizard.com. I finished the Dictionary course yesterday and it answered a LOT of questions. PyImageSearch.com is another even more expensive program but it's got excellent material.
If you're not using Linux, you soon will be...
I believe the future is going to revolve around big data and AI - particularly Deep Neural Networks and CNNs. If I wanted a project to show off, I would do something with the Jetbot and some kind of image based path finding around the kitchen or house (if the wheels will negotiate the carpet). There is already a demo project that does all this but I'm sure there is room for improvement. The idea is to create the network on a PC and somehow port it to the Jetbot. You could probably develop the model on Google Colab which might speed up training.
https://www.amazon.com/Accessories-Wireless-Bluetooth-Recognition-XYGStudy/dp/B07WMZ3KLY (https://www.amazon.com/Accessories-Wireless-Bluetooth-Recognition-XYGStudy/dp/B07WMZ3KLY)
I believe you need to source a 4GB Jetson Nano separately and the price seems to be outrageous at the moment. Even at the Nvidia store, it is marked "Get Quote". I didn't pay anything like the current prices for mine.
There's a bit of linear algebra involved (usually handled by the library) and the preferred language is Python and there are libraries for everything. You can also use the Nvidia SDK and write the project in C++ or Fortran. In any event, it is helpful if your PC has an Nvidia graphics card with a bunch of CUDA units. Not required, but helpful.
You could also do the project in MATLAB.
The Holy Grail is a self-driving car that doesn't crash into Police cars.
You get CS experience in image recognition, AI experience in Convolutional Neural Networks (and image recognition) and embedded experience in making the Jetbot respond to whatever the AI is doing.
Not an inexpensive project.
Maybe a Raspberry Pi will be enough as long as the CNN is already built and just ported over. Or maybe that is overkill. The nice thing is that you could possibly do the entire project on the Pi. It makes a fairly decent workstation. Plan on taking a LOT of photos of proper and improper paths, possibly while driving it around with a wireless PS4 game controller.
Maybe the AI runs on a laptop connected via ethernet to the 'bot. Berkeley Sockets comes to mind...
Search around, there are a bunch of similar projects.
My project supervisor is into AI research and I guess he can help a great deal. But it seems like HUGE in terms of materials to go through.
To make matters complicated, my partner would be joining me soon after a long break and I would be spending a lot of time with her. She's a CS graduate (web dev) but we'll be doing other things ;)
I'll definitely discuss it with my supervisor before changing the project. May be he can point me in the right direction!
Thanks for the input by the way. Appreciate that!
-
Interesting reading in this thread!
BTW, for the time being, I'm going to re-learn C and try to get hold of my project supervisor who's supposed to return after his vacation this week.
I'll have a chat with him and let's see what comes out of it.
Edit:
Can anyone suggest any decent budget multi-meter (UK)?
https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results
-
Edit:
Can anyone suggest any decent budget multi-meter (UK)?
https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results (https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results)
That's quite a price range to choose from. Cost from 2.95£ up to 700£ or more. You need to close up the range because all of the high dollar meters will be acceptable.
Dave sells a couple of Brymen meters, both are excellent: https://www.eevblog.com/store/ (https://www.eevblog.com/store/)
What you are after is range (low uA and low Voltage scales) and accuracy. Start a spreadsheet and see how meters compare and what they cost. The first one I picked from your list has lousy accuracy, 0.8% on DCV compared to 0.1% for the 121GW that Dave sells. I gave up! The only brands I recognize are Fluke (expensive but really good meters) and Amprobe which I think are rebranded. Be wary of meters that target electricians, they may not have the low uA and mV scales.
So, as a rough guess, if you are measuring 5V, you can be off by 40 mV on the cheap meter or 5 mV on the 121GW. Your choice.
Accuracy counts as do digits, ranges, True RMS (desirable) and so on.
So, I'm no help at all!
You might chase this further down the rabbit hole over in the Test Equipment forum. It usually gets quite animated! Have a price range in mind before posting. Otherwise, all you will hear is how great Fluke meters are. Yes, they're quite good but they are pricey. Disclaimer: I have a Fluke 189 - a very good meter currently selling on Amazon for nearly $1000. I bought it for around $400 about 20 years ago. Talk about inflation!
https://www.amazon.com/Fluke-189-True-Digital-Mutimeter/dp/B000MXB5C2 (https://www.amazon.com/Fluke-189-True-Digital-Mutimeter/dp/B000MXB5C2)
The search feature might be useful - or not...
-
Edit:
Can anyone suggest any decent budget multi-meter (UK)?
https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results
To do what?
If to measure logic and opamp power rails, almost any piece of junk will be sufficient. If to measure whether an output is high or low, a resistor and LED is sufficient.
-
Edit:
Can anyone suggest any decent budget multi-meter (UK)?
https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results
To do what?
If to measure logic and opamp power rails, almost any piece of junk will be sufficient. If to measure whether an output is high or low, a resistor and LED is sufficient.
Edit:
Can anyone suggest any decent budget multi-meter (UK)?
https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results
To do what?
If to measure logic and opamp power rails, almost any piece of junk will be sufficient. If to measure whether an output is high or low, a resistor and LED is sufficient.
I'm trying to do some simple LED-based projects (addressable RGB LEDs) first. Then I plan to do more like drones as I have some aerospace design knowledge.
So for the time being, might need to check the resistance, test a diode, continuity and maybe... maybe the capacitance? All low voltage stuff.
The budget is quite low - like 30-40 quid?
-
This deal...is it any good?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/AstroAI-Multimeters-Capacitance-Transistors-Temperature/dp/B071JL6LLL (https://www.amazon.co.uk/AstroAI-Multimeters-Capacitance-Transistors-Temperature/dp/B071JL6LLL)
-
Edit:
Can anyone suggest any decent budget multi-meter (UK)?
https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results
To do what?
If to measure logic and opamp power rails, almost any piece of junk will be sufficient. If to measure whether an output is high or low, a resistor and LED is sufficient.
Edit:
Can anyone suggest any decent budget multi-meter (UK)?
https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results
To do what?
If to measure logic and opamp power rails, almost any piece of junk will be sufficient. If to measure whether an output is high or low, a resistor and LED is sufficient.
I'm trying to do some simple LED-based projects (addressable RGB LEDs) first. Then I plan to do more like drones as I have some aerospace design knowledge.
So for the time being, might need to check the resistance, test a diode, continuity and maybe... maybe the capacitance? All low voltage stuff.
The budget is quite low - like 30-40 quid?
Buy the cheapest piece of crap you can get your hands on. Learn what it can and can't show you a plus what you need to measure. Then, if necessary, you will be in a position to know what you need next.
If you wouldn't touch a naked conductor at the voltages in your system, or currents could melt metal, then you need better than cheap crap.
-
Look around for the Aneng AN8008
https://www.amazon.com/Yosooo-True-RMS-Multimeter-Transistors-Temperature/dp/B07NQ24SJZ (https://www.amazon.com/Yosooo-True-RMS-Multimeter-Transistors-Temperature/dp/B07NQ24SJZ)
Dave did a review on the meter, I don't recall the outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdGQEVdxmQQ&ab_channel=EEVblog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdGQEVdxmQQ&ab_channel=EEVblog)
Ultimately, you will need 3 DMMs - watch some of w2aew's videos or Dave's. You will often see projects where 3 meters are used simultaneously. These tend to be the educational tutorials where they are trying to make a point. Two of the three can be less expensive and maybe, at some point, you buy a more expensive meter with better specs. Or not...
I use mine all the time in preference to the higher dollar meters.
If you don't trust the CAT rating, don't use the meter on mains during a lightning storm.
-
This deal...is it any good?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/AstroAI-Multimeters-Capacitance-Transistors-Temperature/dp/B071JL6LLL (https://www.amazon.co.uk/AstroAI-Multimeters-Capacitance-Transistors-Temperature/dp/B071JL6LLL)
It looks like an AN 8008 to me! Sure, it will be fine for a first meter (I say glibly without checking specs or reviews)
-
I'm trying to do some simple LED-based projects (addressable RGB LEDs) first. Then I plan to do more like drones as I have some aerospace design knowledge.
So for the time being, might need to check the resistance, test a diode, continuity and maybe... maybe the capacitance? All low voltage stuff.
The budget is quite low - like 30-40 quid?
If the signal is time-varying, a scope is more appropriate than a DMM.
Either of these Siglents will do the job. The difference is bandwidth and inputs. We got by for a thousand years with 2 channel scopes but today we seem to think of 4 channels as the standard. I bought a 4 channel scope when I upgraded to a DSO - The Rigol DS1054Z which was the hot setup a few years back.
Today the Siglents are hot:
SDS1202X-E 2 channel 200 MHz $359
https://www.amazon.com/Siglent-Technologies-SDS1202X-Oscilloscope-Channels/dp/B06XZML6RD (https://www.amazon.com/Siglent-Technologies-SDS1202X-Oscilloscope-Channels/dp/B06XZML6RD)
SDS1104X-E 4 channel 100 MHz $475
https://www.amazon.com/Siglent-SDS1104X-oscilloscope-channels-standard/dp/B0771N1ZF9 (https://www.amazon.com/Siglent-SDS1104X-oscilloscope-channels-standard/dp/B0771N1ZF9)
There are some epic threads about the Rigol over in Test Equipment. It is easily unlocked to provide 100 MHz bandwidth and the other options are now free from the factory.
https://www.amazon.com/Rigol-DS1054Z-Digital-Oscilloscopes-Bandwidth/dp/B012938E76 (https://www.amazon.com/Rigol-DS1054Z-Digital-Oscilloscopes-Bandwidth/dp/B012938E76)
-
(Sorry Dave, but we DO HAVE an eevblog multimeter in the house.)
I bought a slightly cheapo and rugged rubber encased multimeter, right here down the street, at:
O'R••••••s Auto Parts (in California).
PLUS, pay attention to some of their misc. LED and audio products. I picked up a 'cigarette lighter' receptacle add-on (under dashboard), where the thing has a USB Charging port. ow, with the (Auto Parts Store) Solar Trickle chargr I've got solar capacity to at least keep phone going, if disaster blackouts occur.
And the LED accessories are cool too.
I don't even drive, LOL.
-
Can anyone suggest any decent budget multi-meter (UK)?
https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results (https://cpc.farnell.com/c/test-equipment/multimeters-clamp-meters/prl/results)
Can't resist a punt here - this is well over your budget, and I don't know its availability - but if you're not going to get the dirt cheap DIY one I'd look at a Kewtech, in the technician range.
https://www.screwfix.com/p/kewtech-ac-dc-true-rms-digital-multimeter-600v/5205p (https://www.screwfix.com/p/kewtech-ac-dc-true-rms-digital-multimeter-600v/5205p)
-
Regards suitable EE training, I've been scanning the Open University website T212
https://www.open.ac.uk/courses/modules/t212 (https://www.open.ac.uk/courses/modules/t212)
which I'm in two minds whether to take up, myself.
-
If that course is 30 credits, how many credits does it take to get a Bachelor's Degree? Around here it is around 150 units (not equal to credits, I suppose) and most courses are 4 units and the program typically lasts 5 years assuming the Freshman is ready to take college level Calculus 1. Otherwise, add 2 semesters (likely 1 year) for pre-Calc. There are typically 2 semesters per year with an optional summer program for select courses. Summer programs are intense if they are STEM oriented. There's the same amount of material to cover and a much shorter period.
Pre-calc is quite popular because high schools do such a lousy job of teaching math to the level required for college.
Distance learning became a way of life for colleges and universities during the height of Covid. It was either get up to speed with distance learning or go out of business. I think the plan is to keep the program because it gives them a larger market with very little in the way of additional costs.
The downside is the lack of networking with other students (relationships, not wire). Study groups aren't what they used to be.
If you have the pre-requisites and the cost isn't too high (I didn't check $), go for it! Better hit the math books, engineering is all math.
-
Even Oxford has distance learning: https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/about/distance-learning (https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/about/distance-learning)
Open University has been doing distance learning for about 50 years. They should be pretty good at it!
MIT has OpenCourseWare: https://ocw.mit.edu/search/?s=department_course_numbers.sort_coursenum (https://ocw.mit.edu/search/?s=department_course_numbers.sort_coursenum)
The distance learning thing is going to be huge! A lot more people are going to be able to get an advanced education and we need a lot more smart people!