General > General Technical Chat
Will our engineering resources become dominated by Chinese design?
<< < (6/13) > >>
coppice:

--- Quote from: Smokey on November 16, 2023, 10:09:02 pm ---Hardware is only half the job.  If I release a circuit board with no firmware I can't expect my customers to write it themselves.

--- End quote ---
If you've worked at a silicon vendor, and talked with people from other silicon vendors, you will have worked out a near universal behaviour. Silicon vendors are run by people who think the world revolves around silicon. They don't value software. They don't value systems design. They don't value board level design. This is why so many EVMs are half baked. Its why do much support software, whether its development tools or drivers, is so bad. Nobody buys a USB chip. Nobody buys a USB driver. They buy the package, which is useless if any of its components is weak. You just can't get management to consistently accept that reality.
Bicurico:

--- Quote from: coppercone2 on November 17, 2023, 08:32:16 am ---
--- Quote from: Bicurico on November 15, 2023, 10:19:18 am ---I visited China 6 years ago (Hong Kong and Shenzhen).
My perception, as a European, was as if I was in the future.
Engineering wise they are on par or beyond Europeans. As an example: I collect TV field meter and have a respectable collection with devices from most manufacturers like Kathrein, Sefram, Televes, Rover Instruments and Promax.
All are European.
But the best field meter I own is the Deviser S7200. It features a full spectrum analyser and has all measurements you can think of, together with the best TS analyser implementation. It is fully developed and manufactured in China.
Now think of Rigol and Siglent. And the upcoming automotive revolution.
What happend is that Europe got lazy and busy with stuff like Gender, socialism and what not, while China was investing in infrastructure and planning ahead 10-20 years. We Europeans are planning ahead in 2 year cycles, to match the 4 year election cycle (2 years to steal all money and 2 years to do campaign for the nex election).
Another reason for our technical failure is the total disinvestment in military forces. As is known, the military application is a driving motor for R&D. We Europeans got lazy thinking that the US, under NATO, will take care of everything.
Europe either changes to a right wing governance and thrives for independence of China, or we are indeed doomed.

--- End quote ---

What technologies do you see being developed by the military that warrents throwing money at them to see economic growth? The trend is not to do general research since the Mansfield amendment in 1970.

Materials they develop stay super classified. Alloys, plastics, etc. Anything made for hypersonic and stealth related projects (big spending) is going to be highly classified for a long time because of national security.

I am not sure what you think the military is on the verge of discovering that's going to improve general industry.

Air logistics is something that is big spending, but its a nightmare to get benefits from this because of laws, ordinances, noise, danger, etc. Amazon is having shit luck at developing it. And it goes with robotics, its so easy to weaponize, they won't be doing anything really cool and available till they have good counter measures. Its probobly treated like having air superiority, or bot superiority. probobly means most of the developments are hush hush and restricted.

Cyber capabilities is god knows what, military unix admins. again cutting edge national security, the source code, algorithms, etc... highly classified and compartmentalized. Walmart aint gonna get the developments in database sorting and shit from them unless its some kinda encrypted service. On the plus side it means that infrastructure will be modern and maintained, which is important. Kind of like how the highway system (eisenhower) had some crazy original plot that was 'landing strips everywhere in ww3'. 

hypersonics - yeah right, the materials are likely treated like stealth bomber skin (terribly classified)

directed energy weapons - maybe some bulked up degraded performance transmitters can be used for space RF beam down power one day. That is a super delayed return. I bet the first phase is gonna be about as successful as Indium internet sats (now its taking off with musk, but the first attempt was a really grievous financial failure)

3d printing - seems like the most useful development for general industry.

robotics - it seems the enemies of the USA are apt at using robotics. the military learned in ukraine that giving people robots means robots will be used against you. Not much barriers to it. Probably gonna be stunted. AI was supposed to be awesome or whatever but it turns out right off the bat their paranoid as hell about it being used against them.

I feel like the military has a poor return on investment due to lack of general research, which seems most useful. All the stuff they want needs to be largely classified to retain a operational advantage in war..... too many people are ready to implement it globally.


I think its wise to maintain reasonable spending here, but IMO its definitely not a way out of financial crisis.


if you increase their budget too much, then press them for returns after massive tech development, their gonna end up giving away some really dangerous stuff thats hard to use and causes instability. the technology won't be useless but  that is not an efficient or wise use of money. if non military uses that extra money to make.. normal ? basic? technology, then you just have a general improvement. its kind of like getting weird ass food instead of more normal food. and the food is ghost pepper chocolate bars that give you a massive stomach ache

--- End quote ---

I actually agree with you, except that I was writing from the EU point of view, while you are probably talking about the US point of view.

It seems to me that EU has completely under-funded the military. As a result, there have been less "real-life" R&D and less military manufacturing. Instead, R&D has been receiving subvention for climate related subjects (recycling, lower carbon emission, etc.). While that is not bad, it does hinder development, when you compete against nations that don't give a damn about these issues. Interestingly, even so, China seems to invest more in alternative energy production that the EU.
 
Black Phoenix:

--- Quote from: Bicurico on November 17, 2023, 04:45:04 pm ---I actually agree with you, except that I was writing from the EU point of view, while you are probably talking about the US point of view.

It seems to me that EU has completely under-funded the military. As a result, there have been less "real-life" R&D and less military manufacturing. Instead, R&D has been receiving subvention for climate related subjects (recycling, lower carbon emission, etc.). While that is not bad, it does hinder development, when you compete against nations that don't give a damn about these issues. Interestingly, even so, China seems to invest more in alternative energy production that the EU.

--- End quote ---

You can not compare a country almost the size of Europe where every province leader reply to a higher office (the politburo) that decides what the country will do and you follow that rules or risk to be oust of the party to a bunch of countries who have their own interests, industries, political parties and friends to take care off.

China said that they were going to be leaders in removable energy. Image (the act of winning and losing face) to the world says that they have to achieve that. Simple as that. They don't care about how much to spend, or how much time it takes or how many people is needed. They care about that they will do and it's done.

Of course it also helps that every step of the process is made in their backyard, from the mining of the elements to the manufacturing of the end product.
rstofer:
In the US, the estimated growth in EE jobs is about 15,000 over the next 10 years or about 1,500 new jobs per year.  That kind of number wouldn't make me rush right out and work on a EE degree.

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htm

We graduate about 28,000 EEs per year and there are about 300,000 EEs working in the field.  Clearly, a large number of EEs should be aging out but the stats don't account for that.
Bicurico:
At the point in time all EU should have already merged into one single country.
Instead our governments are inviting millions of people from middle east, with a totally different and incompatible cultural background.
And worse, instead thriving to be self sufficient, the EU allows everything to be outsourced, mainly to China.
The incompetence of our leaders hurts.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod