Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
Subject: Re: how to master electronics, use of transistor, op amp...?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1036168653 24108 18.104.22.168 (1 Nov 2002 16:37:33 GMT)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:37:33 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 16:37:33 GMT
"Wafer" wrote in message
> Being self taught, I certainly have a bias that would saturate any
> transistor, but for me, all the book knowledge I have turns pale in
> comparison to actuall hands-on experience. If you ask me, it depends
> whether you want to write about theory, or actually build stuff. I
> to design entirely functional devices without ever drawing a schematic
> or picking up a calculator.
This is novel. I am certainly sceptical that you design significant
circuits without a schematic. Very, few of us have the mental process
such as Steven Hawking that allows 100 pages calculations entirely in
> I usually only draw a schematic to aid in
> the design of the PCB itself (and to save the design for later use).
> Seeing it on paper, colleagues tend to get quite frustrated because
> can't explain why it works, no matter how much math they put into it.
Usually, a circuit that cannot be understood with a reasonable over
look, is a poor circuit. A good design is always simple, and easily
> Note that I have tried designing on paper first many times. However,
> is not nearly as much fun, nor does it (hardly ever) yeild a result
> which will hold up under actual tests.
I agree, a pure in depth mathematical design is usually not possible for
complicated circuits, however, again, other then for the likes of Steven
Hawking, I simple don't believe any expert can design a competent
circuit without at last sketching out the main blocks.
>I find it only useful up to a
> certain point. Eventually, there comes the time to "just do it", as
> sneaker company slogan states.
> Theory is, after all, just theory. Nothing is perfect.
Correct theory already *includes* the fact that components are not
perfect, and that there are often unknowns. The reality is, is that, for
example, i.c. design, first pass success on complicated analogue
circuits are not at all unknown by the use of correct simulation
techniques and models.
> always a better way to accomplish something, and those who can think
> outside the box have the best chance at innovation. After all,
> innovation is, by definition, something new. You don't get that by
> following the "textbook examples".
> I should also point out that aptitude plays an important role
> If you don't "have it", you ain't gonna get it. You can't learn to
> talent for something.
I disagree. Talent is for the large part, hard work and introduction of
the discipline at an earlier age.
Its all waffle, for example, to suggest that there is such a dubious
quality as "Star Quality", for the most part, anyone can be a good
> Fortunately, genetics *usually* insures that we
> enjoy what we are good at. Hence the saying: 'Do what you love, and
> what you do'.
> **awaiting many flames**
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.