Exactly. Lots of universities have excellent music schools, and their professors are no doubt technically competant to perform music and to analyze it. But how many university music professors ever write great music?
John
Audio amps, by the nature of the signal, have a huge amount of headroom.
John
Beautiful. I wish more people would do this.
Oh, you can spice things like this...
thermal == electrical
1 K/w == 1 ohm 1 w == 1 amp 1 k == 1 v 1 sec == 1 sec 1 gram aluminum == 1 faradwhich is accurate to something like 5%.
John
I think it's not so much the experience as the mindset. You have to develop an appetite for breaking things down into chains of causes and effects. You also have to feel, deep down, that the whole thing is interesting. People who dislike electronics consider it messy -- they want the "guts" of machines to be hidden from view. Not us!
But The Art of Electronics *still* works that way, and that's what's so great about it!
Today we have the math tools, but we still have transistors whose beta varies by a factor of 10, and lots of other unknowns. So the person who is fascinated by differential equations is still at a disadvantage compared to the person who knows how things work!
What I really like about The Art of Electronics is that, in an era (late
70s) when elaborate math was taking over, it faced reality and told us how to make things work.
I don't know about that. I built a lot of toob stuff from around age
10 to age 15, from kits and schematics, but I really didn't have a clue as to why it worked... I just needed a good amplifier to play my classical music records.I was all set to go to college and study architecture.
Then, in 1956, my father became a Raytheon wholesaler, with stock including CK7xx devices.
I was hooked. In barely two years I could design and build rudimentary circuits.
So off I went to MIT to study EE instead of architecture ;-)
At MIT I lucked into a technician's job working for Professors Woodson and Jackson (and Professor-and-head-of-EE-department-to-be Jim Melcher) in Building 20, which is where I really got the hands-on experience.
...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 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin wrote (in ) about 'Question for Win Hill/ Athlon64', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
Yes. In many cases, think 'boot camp'.
.... as a reaction to the 'boot camp'...
Yes, it went much too far.
In UK, and in theory, we have a liaison programme between practising engineers and schools, to enlighten the students. It works in a few cases, but my impression is that it very largely doesn't work. I think many teachers find it too challenging; 'Can we do some PIC projects like the engineer lady told us about?'
IMHO, if you aren't doing electronics by the age of 10, you probably aren't going to do it very well, unless you are very bright indeed, including practically. By the time you graduate, you have 12 years experience to catch up!
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Dunno. Just hit "Reply to group" without looking. I'll behave next time......
Or one engineer who has both experience and theoretical knowledge.
You are of course correct, but had the marketing department specified the desired light output you would certainly have been able to calculate the required circuit parameters.
Again, my original post took the position of devil's advocate. A successful engineer must possess both theoretical and practical knowledge. I was just commenting on my observation that, in the case of many EE curricula, the pendulum has swung over 50 years from the "too little theory" side to the current "too little practice" side.
I read in sci.electronics.design that BFoelsch wrote (in ) about 'Question for Win Hill/ Athlon64', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
Yes, quite so. I was getting frustrated earlier to day over the delay in plotting some graphics, until I realised I was asking my PC assistant to do 4 x 4 x 4 x 100 x 100 evaluations of an eight-term expression. For four different plots. Luckily, I could reduce the 100 x 100 to 50 x 50 without unacceptable loss of resolution.
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Well, speaking from the point of view of starting both guitar and electronics at 11, there is no correlation whatsoever in technically competency in music and success in music. Fortunately, one can be as ugly as desired to get work as an analogue designer, in fact it helps.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson wrote (in ) about 'Question for Win Hill/ Athlon64', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
Because most loudspeakers have much higher impedance than the nominal value at frequencies where the impedance is significantly reactive. But there are a few 'amp killer' loudspeakers out there that have impedances like 1.0 + j3.0 ohms over a critical (usually low-frequency) range.
Reactive loads may cause second breakdown but also result in considerably increased heating of the output devices. Second breakdown problems can be investigated by Peter Baxandall's protection circuit evaluation test, described in IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-3.
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Hey John Check out this thermal model on page 4.
Harry
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward wrote (in ) about 'Question for Win Hill/ Athlon64', on Sat, 1 Jan
2005:
So much the worse for music. But there are a lot of 'three-chord' electronics designs out there, too.
Your face is your fortune? (;-)
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
To my way of thinking, having one of each kind of engineer is an ideal solution.
I disagree. For example, I recently had to deal with a marketing department that wanted to have a series of meetings about product color, pacaging - and the brightness of the front-panel LEDs. Whether we like it or not, letting them see different brightnesses is just as much a part of engineering as giving them proposed box designs is part of graphics design.
I rather suspect that any attempt to use simulation to decide how much current to send through those LEDs would have failed.
I read in sci.electronics.design that Guy Macon wrote (in ) about 'Question for Win Hill/ Athlon64', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
We need a Spice model of the corporate marketroid. Any offers?
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin wrote (in ) about 'Question for Win Hill/ Athlon64', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
If second breakdown is possible, the fact that the signal spends a lot of time 10 or more dB below peak level is irrelevant. It only needs to hit peak level for a few ms, and BANG!
For thermal overstress caused by a reactive load, the low duty cycle IS relevant, but remember that the heat sinks are also designed with that duty cycle in mind!
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin wrote (in ) about 'Question for Win Hill', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
Or in proper SI symbols (too bad about the ohm!):
1 K/W == 1 ohm 1 W == 1 A 1K == 1 V 1 s == 1 s 1 gm Al == 1 F-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
That would be less work than trying to convince the "simulation can do anything, prototypes are obsolete" crowd that the are wrong.
Maybe if we *simulated* them we could figure out how to convince them...
In article , John Woodgate wrote: [...]
We could get the most of the characteristics with a model including a Dilbert cell and a nop-amp. The noise characteristics would be tricky to model.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith wrote (in ) about 'Question for Win Hill/ Athlon64', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
Oh, very good! I love 'Dilbert cell'.
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.