I like to whip them, beat them, and make them write bad checks.My $0.02: Simulators are fantastic tools that are horribly abused. ...
I like to whip them, beat them, and make them write bad checks.My $0.02: Simulators are fantastic tools that are horribly abused. ...
I don't disagree with you at all, but I am curious... You make a distinction between acquiring an interest in electronics (which I assume includes simple to moderately complex breadboard circuits and Raspberry Pi / Arduino interfacing), and actually learning electronics.For sure, the "maker movement" has rekindled an interest in electronics among the young, and a lot of eagerness to build "cool stuff"; there's no arguing with that.
But I don't see that it's done a darned thing to promote an understanding of, or even an appreciation of, the fundamentals of electronics. If anything, I think it's done the opposite, by promoting the idea that you don't need to learn any electronics in order to do electronics, that all that boring "circuit theory" stuff is completely unnecessary. Just buy an Arduino and some breakout boards for whatever nifty chips you fancy playing with, wire them up on a solderless breadboard according to the handy Fritzing diagram supplied, download the relevant IC driver libraries from github, try out some of the example programs, and presto, you're now an electronics whiz! No circuit theory needed. And no maths!
And I suppose that after you're done with them, they become extremulators...I like to whip them, beat them, and make them write bad checks.
Actually learning electronics is a lot like being an artist I guess. Eventually you can create the music/art in your head and actually see/hear the creation, manipulate it and look past the clutter of details to see what really matters. To really do this you need a good background in the physical process that underlie electronics to see circuits as energy and state manipulators. There is no spoon.I don't disagree with you at all, but I am curious... You make a distinction between acquiring an interest in electronics (which I assume includes simple to moderately complex breadboard circuits and Raspberry Pi / Arduino interfacing), and actually learning electronics.
Ummm... that is not the distinction I was making, which is between the mere desire to make neat electronic stuff and the willingness to do the work of learning enough of the basics to be able to put one's own novel creations together with a reasonable level of success. And my criticism was that although Arduino/RPi et al do a good job of promoting the former, they tend to downplay the necessity for the latter.I don't disagree with you at all, but I am curious... You make a distinction between acquiring an interest in electronics (which I assume includes simple to moderately complex breadboard circuits and Raspberry Pi / Arduino interfacing), and actually learning electronics.
Yes.What do you consider learning? Is it, for example, the level of knowledge covered by the video courses on this site (Ohm's law, calculating current, power, resistance, and voltage, how the components work together, etc)...
I can't imagine how any of that stuff could be useful, other than to someone who intends to pursue an engineering degree. In my opinion, for anyone whose main interest is in acquiring knowledge that will enable him to translate his ideas-- at least, most of them-- into practice with a fair degree of success, that sort of material is of little use....or are you thinking really low-level, like proving theorems with pages of math, getting into the physics of the atomic makeup of various conductive and insulating materials, and things I can't even give you an example of because they're so low-level and I don't know what they are?
I don't think there's much of a balance to be struck: to a great degree, to tinker is to learn. Tinker until you come up against a brick wall (or blow something up), then hit the books to fill in the missing knowledge. Then tinker some more.Personally, I love to learn, but I also love to tinker, so I try to strike a balance between the two.
While I've often thought the same thing -- and suspect that there is more than a grain of truth -- I think back to the old 65-in-1 Electronics Kit that got me interested in electronics and it was much the same. A big book with wiring lists that told me how to construct circuits that did things that I didn't understand in ways that I didn't understand. But it was fun and it encouraged me to explore further -- but I'm sure for every kid that got turned on by one of those kits there were countless that lost interest once they got to the point that they would have to start actually learning stuff. So I don't know how different things are in that regard. What might -- and I only say might -- be different is that (many/most) kids today do seem to have much shorter attention spans and so a smaller fraction of them are willing to put forth the effort to learn the "boring" stuff.But I don't see that it's done a darned thing to promote an understanding of, or even an appreciation of, the fundamentals of electronics. If anything, I think it's done the opposite, by promoting the idea that you don't need to learn any electronics in order to do electronics, that all that boring "circuit theory" stuff is completely unnecessary.
That's also the only way for us to build upon what our ancestors have done in the past. There is a balance between "I got to do all of that myself before I can believe it" and "trust everything others have told me and I will go from here". We have to learn some of the fundamentals ourselves - it would be silly for any of us to insist on building a transistor or a computer all by ouselves for example - but we have to develop critical thinking skills to tell which stories we should believe in and which we shouldn't.The gradual shift on reliance of "somebody else has the answer for what I don't know, or am to lazy, or don't have the time to research myself" attitude is pervasive and corrosive
A proper mix of the two -- and what is "proper" depends on your interests, goals, and temperament. Some people gain a certain level of understanding primarily by doing and seeing and others can best obtain a comparable level of understanding by reading and walking through the math. Some people are content using integrated circuits and others want to design them. Some hobbyists buy transistors and others insist on making them in their kitchen (admittedly, very few and not very good transistors).What do you consider learning? Is it, for example, the level of knowledge covered by the video courses on this site (Ohm's law, calculating current, power, resistance, and voltage, how the components work together, etc) or are you thinking really low-level, like proving theorems with pages of math, getting into the physics of the atomic makeup of various conductive and insulating materials, and things I can't even give you an example of because they're so low-level and I don't know what they are?
Yay, fundamentals!through a full understanding of the fundamentals, designing becomes more intuitive.
As I often tell students: Engineering is both an art and a science -- the art is learning from your own mistakes and the science is learning from the mistakes of others.That's also the only way for us to build upon what our ancestors have done in the past. There is a balance between "I got to do all of that myself before I can believe it" and "trust everything others have told me and I will go from here". We have to learn some of the fundamentals ourselves - it would be silly for any of us to insist on building a transistor or a computer all by ouselves for example - but we have to develop critical thinking skills to tell which stories we should believe in and which we shouldn't.
Mitchell, the designer of the Spitfire once said something along the lines of :- "If someone shows you something so complicated you can't understand it, then it's probably all balls"Yay, fundamentals!
There have been times when I had to remind myself that negative numbers are to the left of zero (on a number line).
Why? Because it led to the correct answer. It jerked me out of focusing on the wrong part of the problem.
I was once confused about an air conditioner that was so old it had a vacuum tube in it!
I looked up the definition of an expansion valve just to get my mind back to the fundamentals.
Time after time, a back-to-basics approach has gotten me through confusing, over-complicated schematics.
You just keep breaking it down into smaller pieces until you can see how they fit together.
Only then can you see the big picture, the overall function of the system.
Do I then take it from what you are saying, it is that electronics is becoming more divided into specialist catagories?You didn't mention what program the student is in. It could make a difference how much you should expect.
I just finished an EET degree in which I got a very good (as far as I can tell) education in the fundamentals, and a pretty balanced approach to analog and digital. But part of that is because the analog side simply interests me more, so I paid attention and chose analog projects and classes when I could.
In my last term I took a power electronics class (as an elective) in which most of my classmates were from the Renewable Energy Engineering program. I was kind of dumbfounded at how my lab partners were so much less knowledgeable than me on what I considered simple things, like what a comparator is and how to use one. But I had to remind myself that they were on different paths than I.
So as a recent graduate who has seen differences not only between myself and people online, but also within my own school, my opinion is that it probably strongly depends on the school, the program, and the individual. I'm always hesitant to make sweeping generalizations about entire groups/industries without considering more local factors.
I'll probably continue worrying about it because I see a difference between making candles, or buggy whips, or electronic circuits and being able to multiply two single-digit numbers together, which is increasingly a skill that is beyond the capabilities of engineering students and even graduate students.I worry about none of it because the candle stick makers lamented the youth who couldn't appreciate dipping rope in wax and the art of raising bees. But it was all for nothing because electricity.
Yes, I suppose it's becoming more specialized. I don't see it as a bad thing though, I think it's natural evolution of a body of highly technical knowledge. At the point electronics is now no one person can become a master of everything. It's better if people can become masters of more narrow subjects. Besides, nothing is created by one person anymore, it's all teams of engineers.Do I then take it from what you are saying, it is that electronics is becoming more divided into specialist catagories?
This would seem to me to be a bad thing unless it is part of an educational master plan to ensure that teams of engineers/designers are required with a greater number of individual specialities, when previously each member had a more general knowledge spread and could multitask.
In my experience the calculator question depended on the course and teacher, but yes always had to show the work. My vector calculus teacher had the opinion of "I had to do this by hand and no way I'm making you do the same".Are you allowed to take calculators or computers etc. into exams? Do you have to show your working?
Let alone memorizing the 4 place log tables because you were too poor to afford a slide rule (about $27.95 ca. 1965, equivalent to $211.29 in today's dollars for a cumulative inflation rate of 656%).I'll probably continue worrying about it because I see a difference between making candles, or buggy whips, or electronic circuits and being able to multiply two single-digit numbers together, which is increasingly a skill that is beyond the capabilities of engineering students and even graduate students.
Yes that is true for me too, but I was incredibly lucky to be given a slide rule by my uncle who had been invalided out of his work and had become a church verger! I practiced with it and prized it above all other possessions.Let alone memorizing the 4 place log tables because you were too poor to afford a slide rule (about $27.95 ca. 1965, equivalent to $211.29 in today's dollars for a cumulative inflation rate of 656%).
by Aaron Carman
by Aaron Carman
by Jake Hertz
by Aaron Carman