On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:37:59 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>>On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>>
>>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>>>> way ;) )
>>>
>>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
>>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
>>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
>>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>>> days?
>>>
>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>> them simultaneously.
>>>
>>
>>There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":
>>
>><https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>
>>
>>Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the person is
>>unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only think in
>>words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure what if
>>any disciplines are involved.
>
>Interesting. I would have expected that all engineers visualize.
>
>Many engineers are bad with words. I know a couple that freely
>substitute milli and micro, and capacitor and inductor, when speaking.
>That creates difficulties. Lots of engineers stutter, or can't find
>common words.

I took Western Civilization in college (graduated with a BSEE in 1969)
- the Professor was spellbinding, and his lectures were standing room
only in the largest lecture hall on campus.

My Teaching Assistant for Western Civilization had started out in the
EE department, and switched to History about half way through. Why?

He said that while he was passing all the academic courses with good
grades, he had observed that his fellow EE students could "see" the
electrons flowing, and so could jump directly to the solution.

But he could not see those electrons, and so had to analyze his way
from first principles, which would be far too slow to be competitive
in a real EE job.

So he switched majors. My reaction at the time was that he was
exactly correct, and that switching was a very wise decision.

Joe Gwinn

On 1/10/2024 8:46 PM, bitrex wrote:
> But total aphantasia is rare and it's a matter of degree, I expect people who
> are strongly phantasic might like fiction significantly more - imagine being

Why would that be limited to fiction? Can't you "immerse yourself" in
a recounting of history, etc.? Can't you "feel" what another individual is
purporting to have experienced? I.e., isn't *compassion* a form of
(non-visual) visualization?

> able to pick up a book and visualize its contents very strongly almost like you
> were watching a film. Sure save money on Netflix.

Totally different experience. Watching films/video is a pedestrian
experience -- the film is "over there" and you are "over here".

> I'm not a big fiction fan, I was moreso as a kid. My test rates me somewhere in
> the middle, not sure if it's an ability that perhaps tends to decline with age
> and is strongest in children.

An imagination is like anything else -- if not EXERCISED, it degrades.
Being able to "forget where you are" (e.g., in the reading of a book)
is a delightful (though often scary) experience!

I've learned that I can't read a novel while *in* the airport lounge
lest I miss the call for my flight. And, if the novel I've selected
is a bit too long for the flight (I read fast), someone invariably has
to jostle me out of my seat when the aircraft lands.

And NEVER take a book into the bathroom!!! :<

On 1/11/2024 8:12 AM, Don Y wrote:
> Why would that be limited to fiction?  Can't you "immerse yourself" in
> a recounting of history, etc.?  Can't you "feel" what another individual is
> purporting to have experienced?  I.e., isn't *compassion* a form of
> (non-visual) visualization?

No, "empathy" is a more appropriate comparison. One can *learn*
compassion much the same way that one can "learn" to express
gratitude *without* being grateful.

On 1/11/2024 9:37 AM, John Larkin wrote:

> I loved sci-fi as a kid, but find it lame and boring now. But I hated
> classics, Jane Austin and Shakespeare sorts of stuff, but love it now.

The only thing more scary to a HS English teacher than a teenager who
isn't into Shakespeare is one who's very big into it.

There's a better-than-average chance they're going to be a movie star
and a better-than-average chance they'll end up a HS teacher and they'll
probably remember you either way..

> Fortunately, I can still design electronics. I visualize basic
> circuits but have to draw them to really think about them. I go
> through absurd numbers of grid pads and uniball pens. The Amazon
> Basics pads are pretty good.
>
> LT Spice is a great aid to thinking.
>
> When I was 30, I had designed hundreds of PCBs and could draw any of
> their schematics from memory. I can't do that any more. No big deal,
> they are on my computer now.
>

I think human designers may have some kind of elegance/consistency
internal rulecheck independent of the internal electrical rulecheck;
that "good" circuits tend to have a certain "look" about them,
independent of their electrical validity. Our brain's ability to do
electrical rulechecks at more than a cursory level is pretty poor.

In the larger-than-electrons-in-Universe state space there are many
circuits appealing to the first rulecheck that are electrical nonsense
and vice-versa, but it may be that the number of "ugly" but
exceptional-performing circuits in that state space, that completely
fail the first human test but pass the physics test with flying colors,
greatly outnumbers the set of circuits that meets both checks.

However a human will have extreme difficulty finding them, the implied
network analysis problem we're discussing is likely NP hard/complete so
can't yet be brute-forced by machine, and AI often has trouble
optimizing even known circuits, much less coming up with novel ones.

So even if I'm right I think the overwhelming majority of "beautiful
scum"-type circuits are just lost to the curse of dimensionality.

On 1/11/2024 10:04 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:37:59 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>>>>> way ;) )
>>>>
>>>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
>>>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
>>>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>>>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
>>>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>>>> days?
>>>>
>>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>>> them simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":
>>>
>>> <https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>
>>>
>>> Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the person is
>>> unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only think in
>>> words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure what if
>>> any disciplines are involved.
>>
>> Interesting. I would have expected that all engineers visualize.
>>
>> Many engineers are bad with words. I know a couple that freely
>> substitute milli and micro, and capacitor and inductor, when speaking.
>> That creates difficulties. Lots of engineers stutter, or can't find
>> common words.
>
> I took Western Civilization in college (graduated with a BSEE in 1969)
> - the Professor was spellbinding, and his lectures were standing room
> only in the largest lecture hall on campus.
>
> My Teaching Assistant for Western Civilization had started out in the
> EE department, and switched to History about half way through. Why?
>
> He said that while he was passing all the academic courses with good
> grades, he had observed that his fellow EE students could "see" the
> electrons flowing, and so could jump directly to the solution.
>
> But he could not see those electrons, and so had to analyze his way
> from first principles, which would be far too slow to be competitive
> in a real EE job.
>
> So he switched majors. My reaction at the time was that he was
> exactly correct, and that switching was a very wise decision.
>
> Joe Gwinn

I also grew up around white male Americans. and an important step in my
professional development was ignoring the overwhelming majority of
stories dudes tell like "I can see the electrons flowing" "I knew I
wouldn't be competitive enough so I...", "Yeah Susan is totally into me,
we banged the other night, bro" and all the fantastical stories dudes
regularly tell, which even many children who still believe in Santa
Claus and the tooth fairy would be straight-up too insightful to take
particularly seriously.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:13:48 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 1/11/2024 10:04 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:37:59 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>>>>>> way ;) )
>>>>>
>>>>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
>>>>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
>>>>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>>>>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
>>>>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>>>>> days?
>>>>>
>>>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>>>> them simultaneously.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":
>>>>
>>>> <https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the person is
>>>> unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only think in
>>>> words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure what if
>>>> any disciplines are involved.
>>>
>>> Interesting. I would have expected that all engineers visualize.
>>>
>>> Many engineers are bad with words. I know a couple that freely
>>> substitute milli and micro, and capacitor and inductor, when speaking.
>>> That creates difficulties. Lots of engineers stutter, or can't find
>>> common words.
>>
>> I took Western Civilization in college (graduated with a BSEE in 1969)
>> - the Professor was spellbinding, and his lectures were standing room
>> only in the largest lecture hall on campus.
>>
>> My Teaching Assistant for Western Civilization had started out in the
>> EE department, and switched to History about half way through. Why?
>>
>> He said that while he was passing all the academic courses with good
>> grades, he had observed that his fellow EE students could "see" the
>> electrons flowing, and so could jump directly to the solution.
>>
>> But he could not see those electrons, and so had to analyze his way
>> from first principles, which would be far too slow to be competitive
>> in a real EE job.
>>
>> So he switched majors. My reaction at the time was that he was
>> exactly correct, and that switching was a very wise decision.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
>I also grew up around white male Americans. and an important step in my
>professional development was ignoring the overwhelming majority of
>stories dudes tell like "I can see the electrons flowing" "I knew I
>wouldn't be competitive enough so I...", "Yeah Susan is totally into me,
>we banged the other night, bro" and all the fantastical stories dudes
>regularly tell, which even many children who still believe in Santa
>Claus and the tooth fairy would be straight-up too insightful to take
>particularly seriously.

I can see the current flowing on a schematic. But positive charges,
not electrons.

Probably some non-white non-male people can too.

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:04:07 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net>
> wrote:
> >On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
> >
> >When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
> >way ;) )
> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits...

In a sense, filter cookbooks are a fit to that kind of perception. There
are tables of integrals that attempt to solve a range of problems by
just covering many forms, and yes, those are useful approaches

> that could be
> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
> days?

By knowing as much as possible about similar uses, one can
>
> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
> them simultaneously.

Quantum isn't a magic word meaning what you need. Content-addressable
memory comes closer (and human memory is content-addressable).

As Edison once said, 'To be an inventor, you need a good imagination and
a lot of junk'.

In essence, every table of integrals IS a lot of junk. So is a liberal education.
And, so is a circuit cookbook-style collection.

On 1/11/2024 2:15 PM, john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:13:48 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2024 10:04 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:37:59 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>>>>>>> way ;) )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
>>>>>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
>>>>>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>>>>>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
>>>>>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>>>>>> days?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>>>>> them simultaneously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the person is
>>>>> unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only think in
>>>>> words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure what if
>>>>> any disciplines are involved.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. I would have expected that all engineers visualize.
>>>>
>>>> Many engineers are bad with words. I know a couple that freely
>>>> substitute milli and micro, and capacitor and inductor, when speaking.
>>>> That creates difficulties. Lots of engineers stutter, or can't find
>>>> common words.
>>>
>>> I took Western Civilization in college (graduated with a BSEE in 1969)
>>> - the Professor was spellbinding, and his lectures were standing room
>>> only in the largest lecture hall on campus.
>>>
>>> My Teaching Assistant for Western Civilization had started out in the
>>> EE department, and switched to History about half way through. Why?
>>>
>>> He said that while he was passing all the academic courses with good
>>> grades, he had observed that his fellow EE students could "see" the
>>> electrons flowing, and so could jump directly to the solution.
>>>
>>> But he could not see those electrons, and so had to analyze his way
>>> from first principles, which would be far too slow to be competitive
>>> in a real EE job.
>>>
>>> So he switched majors. My reaction at the time was that he was
>>> exactly correct, and that switching was a very wise decision.
>>>
>>> Joe Gwinn
>>
>> I also grew up around white male Americans. and an important step in my
>> professional development was ignoring the overwhelming majority of
>> stories dudes tell like "I can see the electrons flowing" "I knew I
>> wouldn't be competitive enough so I...", "Yeah Susan is totally into me,
>> we banged the other night, bro" and all the fantastical stories dudes
>> regularly tell, which even many children who still believe in Santa
>> Claus and the tooth fairy would be straight-up too insightful to take
>> particularly seriously.
>
> I can see the current flowing on a schematic. But positive charges,
> not electrons.
>
> Probably some non-white non-male people can too.
>

I think it's a skill that can be learned with practice like many others.
and the main reason people stop doing things and get out of certain
avenues of study is they just don't like doing them.

The whole "I knew I wouldn't be competitive"-thing sounds like a
back-rationalization to me, "I got out of EE because I wasn't getting
much out of it and I wasn't really motivated by the material" is much
more common, but not as cute a story.

Young adults are fickle, I wanted to be in a big time rock band at age
20. Sounds dreadful to me now but the heart wants what the heart wants
in the moment. I was into cognitive science for a while too but the
department professors were uninspiring and the material annoyingly
abstruse at least for me at 20.

On 1/11/2024 3:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 1/11/2024 2:15 PM, john larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:13:48 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2024 10:04 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:37:59 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by
>>>>>>>> good long
>>>>>>>> way ;) )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components,
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that
>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>>>>>>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey
>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>>>>>>> days?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>>>>>> them simultaneously.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the
>>>>>> person is
>>>>>> unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only
>>>>>> think in
>>>>>> words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure
>>>>>> what if
>>>>>> any disciplines are involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. I would have expected that all engineers visualize.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many engineers are bad with words. I know a couple that freely
>>>>> substitute milli and micro, and capacitor and inductor, when speaking.
>>>>> That creates difficulties. Lots of engineers stutter, or can't find
>>>>> common words.
>>>>
>>>> I took Western Civilization in college (graduated with a BSEE in 1969)
>>>> - the Professor was spellbinding, and his lectures were standing room
>>>> only in the largest lecture hall on campus.
>>>>
>>>> My Teaching Assistant for Western Civilization had started out in the
>>>> EE department, and switched to History about half way through.  Why?
>>>>
>>>> He said that while he was passing all the academic courses with good
>>>> grades, he had observed that his fellow EE students could "see" the
>>>> electrons flowing, and so could jump directly to the solution.
>>>>
>>>> But he could not see those electrons, and so had to analyze his way
>>>> from first principles, which would be far too slow to be competitive
>>>> in a real EE job.
>>>>
>>>> So he switched majors.  My reaction at the time was that he was
>>>> exactly correct, and that switching was a very wise decision.
>>>>
>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>
>>> I also grew up around white male Americans. and an important step in my
>>> professional development was ignoring the overwhelming majority of
>>> stories dudes tell like "I can see the electrons flowing" "I knew I
>>> wouldn't be competitive enough so I...", "Yeah Susan is totally into me,
>>> we banged the other night, bro" and all the fantastical stories dudes
>>> regularly tell, which even many children who still believe in Santa
>>> Claus and the tooth fairy would be straight-up too insightful to take
>>> particularly seriously.
>>
>> I can see the current flowing on a schematic. But positive charges,
>> not electrons.
>>
>> Probably some non-white non-male people can too.
>>
>
> I think it's a skill that can be learned with practice like many others.
> and the main reason people stop doing things and get out of certain
> avenues of study is they just don't like doing them.
>
> The whole "I knew I wouldn't be competitive"-thing sounds like a
> back-rationalization to me, "I got out of EE because I wasn't getting
> much out of it and I wasn't really motivated by the material" is much
> more common, but not as cute a story.
>
> Young adults are fickle, I wanted to be in a big time rock band at age
> 20. Sounds dreadful to me now but the heart wants what the heart wants
> in the moment. I was into cognitive science for a while too but the
> department professors were uninspiring and the material annoyingly
> abstruse at least for me at 20.

Incidentally I think another reason people leave engineering tracks is
that the quality of the didaction at anything but top-tier US
universities tends to range from just okay to abysmal.

On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 03:28:51 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:04:07 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net>
> > wrote:
> > >On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
> > >
> > >When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
> > >way ;) )
> > My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
> > a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
> > made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
> > exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
> > make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
> > days?
> >
> > Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
> > them simultaneously.
> Of course, setting up a "goodness" mask involves working out what you want the circuit to do, and one vital part of invention involves seeing that there is a problem that could be solved. Once you've defined the problem, the solution can be trivial.
>
> Politicians define lots of problems, most of which don't actually exist, and then tout their "solutions". Hitler thought that German needed more living space. Donald Trump seems to have though that the US needed fewer immigrants.

I thought his lebensraum was just an excuse to kill people & steal their stuff.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 12:11:01 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:04:07?PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>> >
>> >When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>> >way ;) )
>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits...
>
>In a sense, filter cookbooks are a fit to that kind of perception. There
>are tables of integrals that attempt to solve a range of problems by
>just covering many forms, and yes, those are useful approaches
>
>> that could be
>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>> days?
>
>By knowing as much as possible about similar uses, one can
>>
>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>> them simultaneously.
>
>Quantum isn't a magic word meaning what you need. Content-addressable
>memory comes closer (and human memory is content-addressable).

I think the human brain is a quantum computer that can evaluate the
immense solution space in parallel, preferably when asleep.

One trick is to not pre-censor the space. Keep, literally, an open
mind.

>
>As Edison once said, 'To be an inventor, you need a good imagination and
>a lot of junk'.

He said a lot of cool stuff.

I recently read that when he developed the light bulb and city
lighting systems, he didn't understand Ohm's Law.

>
>In essence, every table of integrals IS a lot of junk. So is a liberal education.
>And, so is a circuit cookbook-style collection.

Circuit cookbooks used to be popular. I have a couple. They are
interesting to browse.

Jim Willams' two books of essays are great. Some touch on the mental
design issues.

AoE is fabulous, worth reading cover to cover, plus the X-chapters.

On 1/11/2024 1:11 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> As Edison once said, 'To be an inventor, you need a good imagination and
> a lot of junk'.
>
> In essence, every table of integrals IS a lot of junk. So is a liberal education.
> And, so is a circuit cookbook-style collection.

The point of a (good) formal education is to expose you to
as much of that "junk" as possible. You aren't (typically)
required to know/retain all of the detail; rather, just
for some association to trigger a "vague recollection"
of some POTENTIAL solution (which may need modification)
to the problem at hand.

The Rub comes when none of the "standard forms" fits your
application and you have to decide which of them to
leverage to fit -- or, whether another "novel" approach
may be better.

Searching a dictionary is a lot different than searching an
address book -- even though (superficially) they appear
to be the same problem! (think about it)

On 12/01/2024 8:37 am, Tabby wrote:
> On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 03:28:51 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:04:07 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>>
>>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by good long
>>>> way ;) )
>>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components, there is
>>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that could be
>>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey parts
>>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>>> days?
>>>
>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>> them simultaneously.
>> Of course, setting up a "goodness" mask involves working out what you want the circuit to do, and one vital part of invention involves seeing that there is a problem that could be solved. Once you've defined the problem, the solution can be trivial.
>>
>> Politicians define lots of problems, most of which don't actually exist, and then tout their "solutions". Hitler thought that German needed more living space. Donald Trump seems to have though that the US needed fewer immigrants.
>
> I thought his lebensraum was just an excuse to kill people & steal their stuff.

That makes it a typical example of the "problems" that politicians
define and propose to solve. Killing people was a incidental side effect
- stealing their stuff - mainly their land - was the solution he was
selling.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 12/01/2024 9:47 am, john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 12:11:01 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:04:07?PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:

>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>> them simultaneously.
>>
>> Quantum isn't a magic word meaning what you need. Content-addressable
>> memory comes closer (and human memory is content-addressable).
>
> I think the human brain is a quantum computer that can evaluate the
> immense solution space in parallel, preferably when asleep.

John Larkin knows even less about quantum computing than he knows about
the human brain. His speculations on the subject are random noise.

> One trick is to not pre-censor the space. Keep, literally, an open
> mind.

And how would somebody do that? You approach seems to be to learn as
little as possible about about the components you are using - see where
they blow up rather than reading the data sheet.

>> As Edison once said, 'To be an inventor, you need a good imagination and
>> a lot of junk'.

It a lot easier if you have access to lots of different well
characterised components, rather than junk. Knowing what you are playing
with may inhibit your creativity, but it does let see a lot furhter into
where you might go.

> He said a lot of cool stuff.
>
> I recently read that when he developed the light bulb and city
> lighting systems, he didn't understand Ohm's Law.

And it took Telsa's better educated insights to set up the AC
distribution systems we have today. Admittedly, we've gone back to 500KV
DC for really long links, but Edison would never have got there on his own.

>> In essence, every table of integrals IS a lot of junk. So is a liberal education.
>> And, so is a circuit cookbook-style collection.

I never found circuit cook books all that useful.

> Circuit cookbooks used to be popular. I have a couple. They are
> interesting to browse.
>
> Jim Willams' two books of essays are great. Some touch on the mental
> design issues.

They can be interesting, but they aren't all that great. He wrote six
application notes on the Baxandall Class D oscillator, but never
realised the Peter Baxandall had invented it, or suggested using MOSFET
switches. Not a lot of creativity there.

> AoE is fabulous, worth reading cover to cover, plus the X-chapters.

It's useful, but very much aimed at physics students, and scientists in
general. The treatment of transformers is pretty superficial, but you
wouldn't have noticed that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 2024-01-05, Martin Rid <martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:
> john larkin <jl@650pot.com> Wrote in message:r
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:21:08 -0500 (EST), Martin Rid<martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:>John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> Wrote in message:r>> This has been in the science news lately.https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-wordsSomething like one to three per cent of the population can't visualizeobjects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct fromhallucinations.>>I wonder if that's related to not having an 'Internal monologue '.> Eg; talking to oneself. >>Cheers Some people really talk to themselves, out loud, which can beconfusing to others.
>
> I'm referring to internal, not out loud. Search 'internal
> monologue ' on youtube. It's interesting, never knew there were
> people like that.

It's a real thing, but it doesn't come with a reverb effect
like in the movies.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:40:16 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:37:24 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>wrote:
>
>>This has been in the science news lately.
>>
>>https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-some-people-cant-visualize-images-and-may-dream-in-words
>>
>>Something like one to three per cent of the population can't visualize
>>objects. I wonder if such people can still design electronics.
>>
>>And maybe 10% of the population is never really in the dark. They (we)
>>always see flashing geometric patterns, which are distinct from
>>hallucinations.
>
>Why would you have to close your eyes to 'visualize' something?

I think some people visualize better that way. I do, a bit.

People are very different.

>
>I think someone's confusing vision with activity in the brain.

There's a difference?

>
>RL

On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:50:44 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 1/11/2024 3:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 1/11/2024 2:15 PM, john larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:13:48 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:04 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:37:59 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by
>>>>>>>>> good long
>>>>>>>>> way ;) )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components,
>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that
>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>>>>>>>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey
>>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>>>>>>>> days?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>>>>>>> them simultaneously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the
>>>>>>> person is
>>>>>>> unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only
>>>>>>> think in
>>>>>>> words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure
>>>>>>> what if
>>>>>>> any disciplines are involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. I would have expected that all engineers visualize.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many engineers are bad with words. I know a couple that freely
>>>>>> substitute milli and micro, and capacitor and inductor, when speaking.
>>>>>> That creates difficulties. Lots of engineers stutter, or can't find
>>>>>> common words.
>>>>>
>>>>> I took Western Civilization in college (graduated with a BSEE in 1969)
>>>>> - the Professor was spellbinding, and his lectures were standing room
>>>>> only in the largest lecture hall on campus.
>>>>>
>>>>> My Teaching Assistant for Western Civilization had started out in the
>>>>> EE department, and switched to History about half way through.  Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> He said that while he was passing all the academic courses with good
>>>>> grades, he had observed that his fellow EE students could "see" the
>>>>> electrons flowing, and so could jump directly to the solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> But he could not see those electrons, and so had to analyze his way
>>>>> from first principles, which would be far too slow to be competitive
>>>>> in a real EE job.
>>>>>
>>>>> So he switched majors.  My reaction at the time was that he was
>>>>> exactly correct, and that switching was a very wise decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>>
>>>> I also grew up around white male Americans. and an important step in my
>>>> professional development was ignoring the overwhelming majority of
>>>> stories dudes tell like "I can see the electrons flowing" "I knew I
>>>> wouldn't be competitive enough so I...", "Yeah Susan is totally into me,
>>>> we banged the other night, bro" and all the fantastical stories dudes
>>>> regularly tell, which even many children who still believe in Santa
>>>> Claus and the tooth fairy would be straight-up too insightful to take
>>>> particularly seriously.
>>>
>>> I can see the current flowing on a schematic. But positive charges,
>>> not electrons.
>>>
>>> Probably some non-white non-male people can too.
>>>
>>
>> I think it's a skill that can be learned with practice like many others.
>> and the main reason people stop doing things and get out of certain
>> avenues of study is they just don't like doing them.
>>
>> The whole "I knew I wouldn't be competitive"-thing sounds like a
>> back-rationalization to me, "I got out of EE because I wasn't getting
>> much out of it and I wasn't really motivated by the material" is much
>> more common, but not as cute a story.
>>
>> Young adults are fickle, I wanted to be in a big time rock band at age
>> 20. Sounds dreadful to me now but the heart wants what the heart wants
>> in the moment. I was into cognitive science for a while too but the
>> department professors were uninspiring and the material annoyingly
>> abstruse at least for me at 20.
>
>Incidentally I think another reason people leave engineering tracks is
>that the quality of the didaction at anything but top-tier US
>universities tends to range from just okay to abysmal.

People leave engineering mostly because they shouldn't have signed up
for it in the first place; too many do. Any engineering school that
provides the basics is good enough. Nobody teaches undergrad
"electronic design" that I know of.

I suspect that the most rigorous schools actually drive some
engineering talent away. They treat engineering as another formal,
rigorous scientific/mathematical discipline, which it's not. That's
another discussion.

I was just talking about that with a guru at a giant 2-character-named
corporation. He won't work on anything below a billion dollar project.
We agree that ee schools emphasize semiconductor design too much (the
ICE in SPICE) and that the semi industry slurps up the best.

Granted your assumption about US universities, what universities are
best at ee "didaction" ? What countries create the best electronics
designers?

On 2024-03-06 10:31, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:50:44 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2024 3:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 2:15 PM, john larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:13:48 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:04 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:37:59 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by
>>>>>>>>>> good long
>>>>>>>>>> way ;) )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components,
>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that
>>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>>>>>>>>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey
>>>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>>>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>>>>>>>>> days?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>>>>>>>> them simultaneously.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the
>>>>>>>> person is
>>>>>>>> unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only
>>>>>>>> think in
>>>>>>>> words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure
>>>>>>>> what if
>>>>>>>> any disciplines are involved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting. I would have expected that all engineers visualize.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many engineers are bad with words. I know a couple that freely
>>>>>>> substitute milli and micro, and capacitor and inductor, when speaking.
>>>>>>> That creates difficulties. Lots of engineers stutter, or can't find
>>>>>>> common words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I took Western Civilization in college (graduated with a BSEE in 1969)
>>>>>> - the Professor was spellbinding, and his lectures were standing room
>>>>>> only in the largest lecture hall on campus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My Teaching Assistant for Western Civilization had started out in the
>>>>>> EE department, and switched to History about half way through.  Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He said that while he was passing all the academic courses with good
>>>>>> grades, he had observed that his fellow EE students could "see" the
>>>>>> electrons flowing, and so could jump directly to the solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But he could not see those electrons, and so had to analyze his way
>>>>>> from first principles, which would be far too slow to be competitive
>>>>>> in a real EE job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So he switched majors.  My reaction at the time was that he was
>>>>>> exactly correct, and that switching was a very wise decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>>>
>>>>> I also grew up around white male Americans. and an important step in my
>>>>> professional development was ignoring the overwhelming majority of
>>>>> stories dudes tell like "I can see the electrons flowing" "I knew I
>>>>> wouldn't be competitive enough so I...", "Yeah Susan is totally into me,
>>>>> we banged the other night, bro" and all the fantastical stories dudes
>>>>> regularly tell, which even many children who still believe in Santa
>>>>> Claus and the tooth fairy would be straight-up too insightful to take
>>>>> particularly seriously.
>>>>
>>>> I can see the current flowing on a schematic. But positive charges,
>>>> not electrons.
>>>>
>>>> Probably some non-white non-male people can too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it's a skill that can be learned with practice like many others.
>>> and the main reason people stop doing things and get out of certain
>>> avenues of study is they just don't like doing them.
>>>
>>> The whole "I knew I wouldn't be competitive"-thing sounds like a
>>> back-rationalization to me, "I got out of EE because I wasn't getting
>>> much out of it and I wasn't really motivated by the material" is much
>>> more common, but not as cute a story.
>>>
>>> Young adults are fickle, I wanted to be in a big time rock band at age
>>> 20. Sounds dreadful to me now but the heart wants what the heart wants
>>> in the moment. I was into cognitive science for a while too but the
>>> department professors were uninspiring and the material annoyingly
>>> abstruse at least for me at 20.
>>
>> Incidentally I think another reason people leave engineering tracks is
>> that the quality of the didaction at anything but top-tier US
>> universities tends to range from just okay to abysmal.
>
> People leave engineering mostly because they shouldn't have signed up
> for it in the first place; too many do. Any engineering school that
> provides the basics is good enough. Nobody teaches undergrad
> "electronic design" that I know of.
>
> I suspect that the most rigorous schools actually drive some
> engineering talent away. They treat engineering as another formal,
> rigorous scientific/mathematical discipline, which it's not. That's
> another discussion.
>
> I was just talking about that with a guru at a giant 2-character-named
> corporation. He won't work on anything below a billion dollar project.
> We agree that ee schools emphasize semiconductor design too much (the
> ICE in SPICE) and that the semi industry slurps up the best.
>
> Granted your assumption about US universities, what universities are
> best at ee "didaction" ? What countries create the best electronics
> designers?

As far as I know, the best places for turning out BSEEs who can actually
design stuff are CU Boulder and MSU Bozeman.

(Insert obligatory vigorous disagreement on the value of rigorous math.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 17:36:52 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 2024-03-06 10:31, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:50:44 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/11/2024 3:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/2024 2:15 PM, john larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:13:48 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:04 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:37:59 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>> When do you get your best electronic design ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I've had a chance to relax (note - they're still *bad* by
>>>>>>>>>>> good long
>>>>>>>>>>> way ;) )
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My mental model is that, given some modest kit of components,
>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>> a multidimensional "solution space" of possible circuits that
>>>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>>>> made from them. With, say, 200 parts the number of possible circuits
>>>>>>>>>> exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. All the digikey
>>>>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>>>>> make more. So how does one search that space in, say, a few hours or
>>>>>>>>>> days?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Use quantum computing. Set up a goodness mask and apply it to all of
>>>>>>>>>> them simultaneously.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's a standard "mental imagery vividness test":
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently there's a condition called "aphantasia" where the
>>>>>>>>> person is
>>>>>>>>> unable to visualize imagery in their "minds eye" and can only
>>>>>>>>> think in
>>>>>>>>> words. Purportedly more common among engineers though I'm unsure
>>>>>>>>> what if
>>>>>>>>> any disciplines are involved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting. I would have expected that all engineers visualize.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many engineers are bad with words. I know a couple that freely
>>>>>>>> substitute milli and micro, and capacitor and inductor, when speaking.
>>>>>>>> That creates difficulties. Lots of engineers stutter, or can't find
>>>>>>>> common words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I took Western Civilization in college (graduated with a BSEE in 1969)
>>>>>>> - the Professor was spellbinding, and his lectures were standing room
>>>>>>> only in the largest lecture hall on campus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My Teaching Assistant for Western Civilization had started out in the
>>>>>>> EE department, and switched to History about half way through.  Why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He said that while he was passing all the academic courses with good
>>>>>>> grades, he had observed that his fellow EE students could "see" the
>>>>>>> electrons flowing, and so could jump directly to the solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But he could not see those electrons, and so had to analyze his way
>>>>>>> from first principles, which would be far too slow to be competitive
>>>>>>> in a real EE job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So he switched majors.  My reaction at the time was that he was
>>>>>>> exactly correct, and that switching was a very wise decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also grew up around white male Americans. and an important step in my
>>>>>> professional development was ignoring the overwhelming majority of
>>>>>> stories dudes tell like "I can see the electrons flowing" "I knew I
>>>>>> wouldn't be competitive enough so I...", "Yeah Susan is totally into me,
>>>>>> we banged the other night, bro" and all the fantastical stories dudes
>>>>>> regularly tell, which even many children who still believe in Santa
>>>>>> Claus and the tooth fairy would be straight-up too insightful to take
>>>>>> particularly seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see the current flowing on a schematic. But positive charges,
>>>>> not electrons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably some non-white non-male people can too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a skill that can be learned with practice like many others.
>>>> and the main reason people stop doing things and get out of certain
>>>> avenues of study is they just don't like doing them.
>>>>
>>>> The whole "I knew I wouldn't be competitive"-thing sounds like a
>>>> back-rationalization to me, "I got out of EE because I wasn't getting
>>>> much out of it and I wasn't really motivated by the material" is much
>>>> more common, but not as cute a story.
>>>>
>>>> Young adults are fickle, I wanted to be in a big time rock band at age
>>>> 20. Sounds dreadful to me now but the heart wants what the heart wants
>>>> in the moment. I was into cognitive science for a while too but the
>>>> department professors were uninspiring and the material annoyingly
>>>> abstruse at least for me at 20.
>>>
>>> Incidentally I think another reason people leave engineering tracks is
>>> that the quality of the didaction at anything but top-tier US
>>> universities tends to range from just okay to abysmal.
>>
>> People leave engineering mostly because they shouldn't have signed up
>> for it in the first place; too many do. Any engineering school that
>> provides the basics is good enough. Nobody teaches undergrad
>> "electronic design" that I know of.
>>
>> I suspect that the most rigorous schools actually drive some
>> engineering talent away. They treat engineering as another formal,
>> rigorous scientific/mathematical discipline, which it's not. That's
>> another discussion.
>>
>> I was just talking about that with a guru at a giant 2-character-named
>> corporation. He won't work on anything below a billion dollar project.
>> We agree that ee schools emphasize semiconductor design too much (the
>> ICE in SPICE) and that the semi industry slurps up the best.
>>
>> Granted your assumption about US universities, what universities are
>> best at ee "didaction" ? What countries create the best electronics
>> designers?
>
>As far as I know, the best places for turning out BSEEs who can actually
>design stuff are CU Boulder and MSU Bozeman.
>
>(Insert obligatory vigorous disagreement on the value of rigorous math.)
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

Math is wonderful and necessary. But it doesn't have ideas.

When I was at Tulane, the ee dean told me that undergraduates don't do
design, that was reserved for grad school. Funny.

I've employed two, maybe three, PhDs and I didn't find them to be
especially creative. They seemed to be afraid to break rules. I do
have a very recent PhD hire that I'm optimistic about; she has had a
bunch of hands-on experience in power electronics and had ideas in an
interview brainstorm.

Phil Hobbs wrote:

<snip>

> As far as I know, the best places for turning out BSEEs who can actually
> design stuff are CU Boulder and MSU Bozeman.

Bless you. My fondest college memories entail studying for my BSEE at CU
Boulder's Engineering Library. My dad attended CU Boulder about the same
time as Widlar.

Danke,

--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

On 7/03/2024 2:31 am, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:50:44 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2024 3:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2024 2:15 PM, john larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:13:48 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/11/2024 10:04 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 06:37:59 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 22:46:46 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2024 10:02 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-08, john larkin wrote:

<snip>

> Granted your assumption about US universities, what universities are
> best at ee "didaction" ?

None of them are much good at it. Electronic engineering is an art, and
what universities do is provide access to knowledge. Harvard gave us
"The Art of Electronics" which is a great textbook for clever students,
but can't turn them into good engineers.

> What countries create the best electronics designers?

Lots of them. One of the best I knew was born in Ethiopia, and in the UK
I worked with very good people who were born in India and Pakistan,
though most of them came from England and Scotland. The Welsh were
under-represented but there weren't all that many of them in south east
England.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 7/03/2024 3:19 pm, Don wrote:
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> As far as I know, the best places for turning out BSEEs who can actually
>> design stuff are CU Boulder and MSU Bozeman.
>
> Bless you. My fondest college memories entail studying for my BSEE at CU
> Boulder's Engineering Library. My dad attended CU Boulder about the same
> time as Widlar.

Bob Widlar certainly could design stuff. So could Barry Gilbert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrie_Gilbert

He got his degree in applied Physics from the Bournemouth Municipal
College, in the UK in 1962. It's not a famous tertiary educational
institution.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney