Re: philosophical question about sharing information

Me suspects a little "joint" action ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I can totally see the path from the already common IC probe positioning tools. Retrospect is wonderful.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message news:pp-dnaUOi94CmIjVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com...

The world would have been a much poorer place had you opted to withhold that information.

;-)

Get your "licence". There are problems everywhere getting good people who understand the technology (things like building automation systems, building SCADA) that are in a position to do it right.

Do you have a citation or reference than can support that statement?

Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications

If your time is limited, why respond at all to posts that you feel do not deserver "respect"?

I haven't found that a 'licence' improved anyones' understanding of squat.

....but of course all employers will be expecting provincially transferable credentials.

RL

Perhaps not, but the study required to acquire one might well improve someone's understanding of the subject matter.

If I were an employer (say a commercial broadcast radio station), the presence of a license (say an FCC 1st Class Radiotelephone) would be an indication that this person could legally perform certain kinds of work without my having to train them and help them obtain that same license. Assuming I needed an employee to maintain my transmitter, an employee with that license would be worth more to me than one without... and I'd probably have to offer them a higher salary.

I can't speak for all licensing exams, but my understanding is that passing the FCC exam indicates that the taker has a certain minimal knowledge of electronics and FCC rules and procedures; that is, it isn't designed to test every possible area of the taker's expertise. I would not expect that same license to guarantee that the prospective employee was intimately familiar with the tuning procedures for a 2008 SuperDigitalGigaWatt Mark IV transmitter; I could (and would ) hope for it, but I wouldn't _expect_ it simply based on seeing the FCC license listed on an applicant's CV.

I'm probably diverging from the thread a bit here, but I'm reminded of some discussions of state (and commonwealth) educational testing; a similar distinction between "minimally comprehends" and "fully understands" often gets lost in the Rant'n'Rancor(tm).

The Standards of Learning established by the Commonwealth of Virginia some years back were intended to be minimal standards; simply passing the SOLs did _not_ mean that you should have received an "A" on your report card, just that you were probably entitled to a "D" or perhaps a "C-". Unfortunately, many public discussions and much media reporting seem to imply that the SOLs are set so high that only an "A" student can pass them, and that therefore they should be made easier or even eliminated. At the risk of sounding hopelessly inhumane, to my ears that sounds like an argument that if we're seeing brownouts we should install AC meters based on a NewVolt scale (where 1.0 NV = 0.9V).

Sorry about the soapbox. It occasionally sneaks out and runs underfoot when I'm not paying attention.

Back to the licensing question, though. As an employer there is one other thing that a license implies: it tells me that the applicant is at least minimally cognizant of, and capable of dealing with, bureaucracy and strongly-enforced (but not necessarily reasonable) requirements. It's good experience for working with customers... and possibly the hiring organization if it is large enough.

Frank McKenney

-- Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish. -- Pope John Paul II

--

Maybe. Maybe not. The requirement for a PE is often disregarded by companies and inspection authorities.

I just attended a talk on SCADA software architectures. The biggest problem from the point of view of vendors seemed to be making the IDE simple enough for people like electricians to use. It seems that a good part of the industry (and the code enforcement inspectors) just ignore requirements that designs be done under the supervision of licensed engineers.

I was talking to a local utility a few years ago about straightening out the revision control system they used for their substation designs. It turns out that their problems arise from their practice of allowing the substation crews to go out and build stuff without engineering drawings. All engineering really did was as-builts. Management didn't seem to have any problems with this process, so rather than take on the job, I just walked away.

If all that the AHJ cares about is that there is a PE of record somewhere on staff who can be sued when something fails and kills someone, its not all that valuable.

Funny thing, if you bother to learn how basic power electronics you can get your licence. The jobs may come hunting you. It is that way for me.