Where can EEs get "practical" classes to be better custom-ic designers?

I should clarify, I'm NOT looking for pointers on how to push buttons on tools - nor am I looking for more theoretical knowledge like that already given in countless universities - I'm looking for pragmatic design skills training to augment on-the-job training already given.

That is, can you respond with a suggestion or two pointing to whatever people or material you know of that could help graduating EEs improve their job-related analog, rf, or mixed-signal DESIGN skills - outside their regular job?

Where can custom-ic designers go to improve their design skills?

I know it's not what you are asking for, but I would like to ask new engineers to pay attention to their layout designers (assuming they don't do their own layout). I cannot tell you how many times I have been given a schematic, or series of schematics, that are darn near impossible to figure out. We have an on going joke about having to "break in" a new engineer, so they draw schematics properly.

I've actually had one time where I was given a high speed digital datapath, but the schematics were drawn where each state was arrayed rather then one schematic for the entire path that's arrayed. In other words, I had schematics that was 20 inverters. Those 20 outputs went into another schematic, and were inputs for 20 nor gates... Seriously, I'm not making that up!

That is what orcad and the likes does. You still have to do a lot of manual editing to get it readable.

Bob

I actually have a problem with the word "training". To put it bluntly, my view is that if "training" to do analogue design is required, one will never be much good as an analogue designer. I can't say that I have ever had any "training" to do analogue i.c. design.

The idea is that you learn and understand the basics that you were taught in university. e.g.

:-). That is, although there are a few bits and pieces here and there that may not be covered, the bulk is all volts and amps. The amount of new knowledge required is actually quite limited. Its applying what you should already know, e.g. cascodes, diff pairs, offset calculations, BW, stability etc, to construct circuits that matters.

You analyse existing circuits, by *yourself* and figure out, by yourself, why things were done that way. If you can not figure out why something was done that way by yourself, you wont be able to design new circuits. Thats what "training" really is in my view.

So, pick something to design. That is, find a full detailed spec for something, and try and design it in complete detail using Spice. That is how you learn design, by doing it. No amount of watching someone kick a ball, or telling you how to kick a about will turn you into a David Beckham. *you* need to the kick the ball.

--
Kevin Aylward
kaEXTRACT@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice

Berkeley's class about Analog and RF design is quite good and there're videos in the website. Have a look at them: EE142, EE140 and EE240

You have a problem withi the word "training" but you suggest people insure they understand the basics they were taught in university?

In my book, university is just another word for (relatively broad) "training." Hence the suggestion that "if training is required, you'll never be any good as an analog designer" is absurd; you might as well state, "if you have to go to university, you'll never be any good as an analog designer."

Since the quality of universities varies greatly, how well "trained" anyone is in the basics after graduating varies greatly as well. Individuals who wish to improve their skill sets should be lauded, and while I agree with you that a lot of "training" is of the "do it yourself" nature, I also think there's a lot to be said for studying under the mentorship of a good designer.

---Joel

The OP wants to learn to apply that better.

Does a university no matter what the quality, cover the same basic material?

Probably most of it.

Is that always available to an indidvidual?

At least in the U.S., I think it's a safe statement that the majority of engineering schools follow ABET standards and therefore do attempt to cover the same basic material.

How well they actually do that varies greatly, of course.

Unfortunately, no... although it doesn't occur to many new college grads that it's really even an option. There was certainly something to be said for the old "apprenticeship" style of training.

---Joel

You don't get taught in uni. Someone writes a few bits and pieces on the board, and you copy it.

I disagree. In my view, all the really good analogue designers, essentially, trained themselvs.

In my uni days I had, maybe, a few 1 hour classes, like, this is a cascode, this is an emitter follower, out of 4 years of "training". Sure, I got Maxwell's equations, digital design and shit, but that was about it. I learnt detailed transistor level design simply by looking at circuits, and designing them.

A "good" university e.g. Cambridge, might not even have any taught courses at all, just like doing a PhD, you teach yourself. An instructor is only there for basic guidance, not to teach you. Its er.. called being a mature student.

Yes, but if you want a job done right, do it yourself. Even when I play the guitar, if I was ever "taught" a song, I would forget it. Teaching yourself and it sticks in. Get books, read and understand them. If you don't understand some bit, ask someone that might know, but don't expect that a "teacher" will be able to give you anything but the basics to get started.

The point is that in actually reality, if you are not a "bod" i.e someone that learns this stuff on their own, in my view, you just wont become much good as an analogue designer. That's just my experience. Like, you could never teach me to paint. I just can't do it. Like, painters teach themselves

The problem is that that a good designer generally don't have the time. Analogue design takes way much, way too much to explain all the details that actually have to be done to make a circuit work, and actually manufacturable .

--
Kevin Aylward
kaEXTRACT@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

Kevin -- I do agree with much of what you're said; we're not really that far apart, I think, in our beliefs. Thanks for the post...

One thing I'd mention is that "learning by looking at circuits and designing them" is not as applicable today as it was in, e.g., the '70s: Circuits today are very complex to take in all at once (you can't just open up the back of a cell phone and figure much out...). Recall the discussion about...

-- Whether or not even the most brilliant minds of the '60s would be able to figure out how a modern hard drive worked (not so clearcut!)

-- The case where some guy's friend wanted to make a 3D computer game and so just started entering "code" such as "fire missiles at enemies" in a text editor and actually thought he was "pretty close" to making something work!

If you open up electronics magazines today, the vast majority of them are centered around microcontrollers and digital stuff which arguably is much easier to understand and digest than, e.g., some fancy neutralized tube amplifier for UHF. Even if you open up a magazine and see, e.g., a guitar amplifier, in all likelihood it's using someone's all-in-one IC rather than being a discrete design, right?

Kids who don't have some "guidance" -- and access to a good library! -- are definitely at a bit of a disadvantage today when it comes to learning analog design, IMO.

---Joel

P.S. -- Kudos for putting up your own web pages on analog design. Ditto to folks like Jim, Joerg, and John who do similarly and/or spend a significant amount of their personal time helping others to learn.

Only this way: Build stuff. Buy parts at Digikey or other places, fire up the soldering iron, put it together, make it work. IMHO you cannot become a good analog IC designer unless you have a lot of experience with discrete circuits under the belt.

Nowadays I encounter a lot of fresh grads who think that mastering SPICE and VHDL is all they need. Wrong. If someone can't solder I usually advise my clients against hiring that engineer and keep looking.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Yes and thanks.

I was really restricting my reply to analogue ic design itself. The circuits are usually more manageable. I agree, that many actual products are impossible to analyse.

Yes. Transistor level discrete design is all but extinct.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

I probably have to agree, maybe, sort of. It was my own particular path, however, I dare say its possible in principle to become good without discrete circuit experience. What is quite important though is getting real experience with any physical hardware, even if it is only with your ic fabed ones.

Although I have spent many, many, years on the bench, for the last 10 years or so, it has been entirely in the virtual cadence world. I can honestly say that I can design relatively complex analogue chips, entirely by computer, and have first pass successes. However, its hard to evaluate just how much of my prior discrete bench work contributed to this. I believe it was significant, but I just can't really say for definite.

Generally, I find those that can't solder are not much use, because soldering is what bods do, and in my experience, its only the bods that end up being any good. You need to have done things on your own accord, to be good at anything, in my view. e.g your ice skaters, violinists, etc. If mum has to force you, their wasting their time.

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

Nope, it sure ain't. I make a living with it. What is quickly dwindling is the required talent pool. Because most students believe in this extinction myth they gravitate towards chip design, FPGA, embedded or software. A client had searched a full two years for an analog guy with discrete design capabilities and finally had to import one. And I am still coaching him because young grads haven't had our level of hobby exposure.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

In general I agree, but I do think some people are so extraordinarily bright that they end up being very good at particular things with only, say, pecuniary interest (rather than, e.g., hobbyist interest) -- someone like Tonya Harding (clearly quite talented) perhaps might fit this category.

I also imagine that someone like Gary Kasparov, even if he hadn't been playing chess all his life, could still beat most players within, say, one year of beginning to play. It's hard to overstate just how much better someone like Kasparov is at what he does best than the average Joe is.

---Joel

Spread the word: If at all possible use a uP... keep us old farts working ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
         America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

Yep :-)

But there will come a time when we aren't around anymore. Even among analog chip designers I can tell the difference between the old ones and newer grads. The young folks lean heavily towards building blocks and have a hard time with true device level stuff. In the discrete world it's worse, only very few young engineers who would dare to jump into transistor level at all.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I do not think one can become good without getting the hands dirty. Only by building stuff can one gain a true appreciation about inductive coupling mechanisms, EMI, inductor saturation, ESR, datasheets cooked by marketing people, and so on.

Your bench experience is what give you a dose of reality when doing SPICE. For example, a rookie who never saw a bench will not likely know why and when tantalum capacitors become spacecraft.

Exactamente. If a client asks me to interview a candidate and he or she can't solder the interview is de facto over.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

We need to hold on to our health as long as possible.

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
         America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave