Can Circuit Design Be Approached Like Algorithm Design in Computer Science?

[DragonPetter]

Anyone can learn anything in the physical/mathematical sciences without the need to waste tons of $$$ and time with in an over-slow paced needlessly lengthy study course, not to mention the useless classes...
Saying that a gifted person who studied hard to become a famous figure and innovative in the electronics industry copying decades-old projects is very naive, and is a huge divergence from reality. :) So please no insult to self-learner's intelligence. :)

I'm not insulting a self-learner's intelligence. To compare someone who mimicked a design that is 30 years old and that is not exactly cutting edge nor technologically innovative (although commercially innovative and successful) to a lot of EE researchers, including professors, who are involved in innovative and original designs and concepts, is naive and a bit ignorantly disrespectful. Combine that with your dismissal of peer reviewed "dream" papers as less valid than a textbook, and I have to think that your attitude is simply unrealistic and unhelpful. The comment on wasting $$$ and time is irrelevant to this. I just don't buy into the sensationalism or hype where I would believe she is on the same technical level as most engineers, yet alone professors. I'm not discrediting her success, just being a realist when someone makes inappropriate comparisons.

No it's not and I insist it's not. All electronic books including the "very basic" ones, are all similar just different names, slightly different topics. They don't show it from a pure mathematical/modeling perspective, that's one thing makes me suspecting that the field of EE is more like technical/applicable than pure science.

I'm not sure that you understand what modeling is. Every circuit element in your electronics book is a mathematical model. Ohm's law, KVL, and KCL are also mathematical models. What is non-mathematical about the circuit models? What else would you build any mathematical function or model on other than the basic building blocks of that mathematical system? What is non-basic that you want to see in a circuit? I swear your last questions have revolved around asking about mathematical functions of circuits, and when you see the functions in circuits, you say you want pure models. A pure model still has to be modeling something, and so it would be abstract and could describe a large number of physical systems, one of them being electronics. Those circuits in the link are based on the pure mathematical element models. Study what an ideal opamp is, and you will be studying its mathematical model. Same goes for all of the passive elements. Circuit theory is abstracted mathematical models. The fact that we can use these models to approximate real circuits happens to be extremely useful.

And yes, EE is technical and applicable rather than a pure science. I don't know where you ever got an impression that it was a pure science, but then again neither is software engineering.

Very helpful, but where is this presented in any book? All they do is just classify a few types of amplifiers and show no in-depth explanation on how to interconnect these components to create a certain functionality.

Maybe what I need is the correct name of the subject I'm looking for.
I don't want a book that presents me a pre-compiled circuit that took them to design 100 years and then do some analysis on its input output. What I really want is a book that presents me with a systematic and mathematical way how to build things from the ground up.

...

Probably the science of designing circuits is not well defined and established yet and still very experimental and open-research.

I said it is presented in Sedra and Smith, and it is probably presented in any other book that teaches opamps and electronics fundamentals. You should also check out LTI systems books, and that might be more of what you're looking for.

Designing circuits is well defined and established. It is not an easy subject and requires more than a cookbook of instructions to build from the ground up. There are also often many circuit solutions to the same mathematical input-output model.

I am a bit confused as to what you're getting at. If I asked you to show me a method that added 2 numbers from the ground up, in purely mathematical form as you seem to be hung up on, you would have to define axioms of addition and its properties and the number system in abstract algebra form. I don't see how this is much different from how we have defined the addition circuit (opamp summing junction) and the numbers (the signals) and the axiom that the output is the sum of the two inputs. You can use circuit theory to show that this is true based on the mathematical models of the circuit elements we are using. Why can't you take the next step and abstract that opamp summing junction as "pure" addition as a mathematical model?

Another useful tool is National's LabView. It is a graphical programming structure, where you use "pure mathematical models" that happen to look like circuits. It might help you see the connection.

 

[dijkarte]

Might be true, you know better than me.

But just a little comment about some of these "microelectronic books" recommended by universities, I just don't get them. They are the worst and if not cookbooks, then they talk to themselves.

Nothing mentioned like the tutorial you gave me on amplifiers. Take for instance the cookbook: "Fundamentals of Circuit Analysis" it explains the basics in a nice colorful way but then when it comes to more advanced topics it just retreat. 4 basic amplifiers no discussion about how to form an analog calculator for example.

I'm now realizing I'm lacking a lot of basics but it's because the books I'm studying from...which are the standards by the academia. I took a few physics courses at the university level as electives, but guess what, these cookbooks and self-teaching did much better to me than the actual classes.

Here is a list of the books I'm using for studying:

"Fundamentals of Electric Circuits" by Siduki and Alexander.
"Electric Circuits" by Riedel
"Microelectronic Circuit Analysis and Design" By Neaman
"Signals and Systems" by M. J. Roberts.

 

[DragonPetter]

They are giving you the basic building blocks and showing you how the parts work together. They are not teaching you how to build a radio or computer. You need more specialized textbooks to learn about things like that, or you need to sit down with a pencil and paper and try to design it with the building blocks you have.

Say I want to perform the mathematical operation y(x) = 2(x + 1). I now need to find an analog of this function in electronics. As a designer, you choose how to represent this function with the model tools you have, ie KVL, KCL, ohm's law, and all of the other relationships you have from circuit theory.

I could first draw a block diagram of the process. If you are not familiar with the block diagrams, then that might be a helpful tool for you to learn. It is a graphical model of the mathematical function.

From that block diagram, I see I have 2 values that I'm adding, then I am multiplying the sum by 2, and the output is my function y(x). From that block diagram, I will pick out circuits that I know can do each of the different functions and connect them input to output just as I see in the block diagram.

I think you should keep studying your books, but you should also pick something to design, and you can build it with real components or in a free simulator like LTSpice. You could try to design a circuit that implements the function y(x) = 2(x + 1) for example. If you have question how to do that, you should ask about that specifically. Searching for a universal mathematical approach like a computer science algorithmic approach to designing circuits will be very unhelpful.

One last thing on that. When people learn to code their first programs, do they learn it from a purely computer science, algorithm approach? I think the common way is to learn the language syntax, programming rules, and basic program structures. They don't teach high level software architecture or turing machines to someone just learning to write their first "Hello World" program. Similarly, people aren't taught all of the scales, music notation, and music theory before they are taught how to sing a song or play a few chords in succession on a guitar. So, I think your goal for a computer science approach to circuit design is not going to get you very far, and you are better off playing around with the ideas in the book and looking at other people's designs and taking on some projects to see how circuit design works. One of the most fun parts of electronics is being creative (and appreciating the creativity of others), rather than following a strict algorithm.

 

[dijkarte]

Seems the idea is very possible using amplifier circuits but what about filter? Can we design filters the same way. For instance I want to create a filter (active or passive) that passes, for example, the given signal:

f(x) = e^sin(2x) + e^cos(4x) - 2

And I want to generate this signal too. HOW?

If we follow the same simple analog calculator method you mentioned, two questions arise:

1) Where can I find the mapping of circuit/component to math function?

2) Is algebraic addition in math always correspond to connecting any type of circuits/components (output-input cascading) in series?

 

[dijkarte]

Ok I could figure it out myself...I think I've a clearer view of how things work in electronics, and honestly I was not expecting it to be that easy. Now I can confidently say it's pretty much like programming but we use physical components instead. :D

Thanks for all your help.

I'm thinking of something that may be already there but I don't know what it's called. I understand that filters can response to frequency, but is there a type of filter that response to a certain wave shape? For instance, I need a filter that only passes waves of a specific shape, regardless of frequency and amplitude.

 

[milesyoung]

Now I can confidently say it's pretty much like programming but we use physical components instead ...

This kind of abstract approach to electronics will only work if you can take your very high level schematic and hand it over to someone who has spent many years learning the intricacies of analog/digital design. He/she will then spend hours trying to explain to you the reality, i.e. limitations, of electronics and what is feasible and what is not.

If you're interested in electronics, you should try to design a simple circuit, build it and test it. If it works, then build some more. Your future colleagues will thank you.

... I need a filter that only passes waves of a specific shape ...

How would you characterize "shape"?

 

[DragonPetter]

Ok I could figure it out myself...I think I've a clearer view of how things work in electronics, and honestly I was not expecting it to be that easy. Now I can confidently say it's pretty much like programming but we use physical components instead. :D

Thanks for all your help.

I'm thinking of something that may be already there but I don't know what it's called. I understand that filters can response to frequency, but is there a type of filter that response to a certain wave shape? For instance, I need a filter that only passes waves of a specific shape, regardless of frequency and amplitude.

There's options to do what you mentioned, but it all depends on the specific application and it goes beyond just electronic circuits. Ideas of coherence, correlation, frequency mixing/heterodyning, and modulation can all be implemented with analog circuits. You need to know the basics first though before you can implement more complex circuits, or unless you just copy someone's design. You can't really design a circuit to do everything with no constraints or limits though. You will pick up signal processing in your LTI systems book, and then there is a whole field of analog electronics involved with signal processing.

 

[dijkarte]

This kind of abstract approach to electronics will only work if you can take your very high level schematic and hand it over to someone who has spent many years learning the intricacies of analog/digital design. He/she will then spend hours trying to explain to you the reality, i.e. limitations, of electronics and what is feasible and what is not.

You missed the point about abstraction. I would suggest reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1558607358/?tag=pfamazon01-20

How would you characterize "shape"?

Shape from wave-shaping, the shape of a wave, defined by a function.

You can't really design a circuit to do everything with no constraints or limits though.

Exactly like in software construction, there are always limitations.
All I'm asking is what type of filter that is called. Probably I'm thinking out of the box a little bit. :D

 

[milesyoung]

I was specifically responding to this:

Now I can confidently say it's pretty much like programming but we use physical components instead ...

You say you're new to electronics. I'm saying if you take a design based on high level ideal abstractions and try to implement it, you'll quickly become very, very frustrated with electronics (which would be a sad first experience and might put you off). I'm sure your book won't try to convince you otherwise.

Shape from wave-shaping, the shape of a wave, defined by a function.

If you'd be willing to accept a delay of a wave period plus perhaps some processing time, you can use a nonlinear filter to match the wave to your signal profile within some thresholds. No linear filter can do what you're asking though. In practice, you'd probably use a Digital Signal Processor or the like as your nonlinear filter.

The delay of a wave period must naturally be there. The filter can not "see into the future" to determine if it should start passing though the signal.

 

[DragonPetter]

If you'd be willing to accept a delay of a wave period plus perhaps some processing time, you can use a nonlinear filter to match the wave to your signal profile within some thresholds. No linear filter can do what you're asking though. In practice, you'd probably use a Digital Signal Processor or the like as your nonlinear filter.

The delay of a wave period must naturally be there. The filter can not "see into the future" to determine if it should start passing though the signal.

This is why I mentioned to him about studying correlation. You can crosscorrelate 2 signals, 1 being the "ideal" signal with the desired pattern. To make it work at any frequency and amplitude, you probably would have to do amplitude and time stretching to sort of normalize the input signal, which I'm not sure off the top of my head how that would be done best. Anyway, this is far beyond the level that OP is at and it is pointless to talk about the end of the road when the beginning isn't clear.

 

[dijkarte]

IC it's a signal processing subject, and I'm not there yet :D

Just wanted to know if there's a filter type called something Shape-Pass filter...this can be my first homework when I start studying signals. :D

Any suggestions for a good, clear, and colorful signal processing and systems book?
The one I have is not a standard but I want something better.

 

[dijkarte]

Ok now I think the term circuit design is misleading, and many times confused by implementation or making the actual physical circuit. It should be called circuit-modeling like in mathematical modeling, but here we use the opposite, starting from a math model and try to simulate it using the laws of circuits. This transformation process sometimes mistakenly called "design" is wrong wrong wrong!

 

[milesyoung]

... starting from a math model and try to simulate it using the laws of circuits ...

So you have used circuit laws, KVL/KCL/Ohm's law etc, and made a circuit to implement your mathematical model. You must then also have chosen components, resistors/inductors/capacitors etc, otherwise you'd have nothing to apply those circuit laws to. How is this not circuit design?

There is no one-to-one mapping between a general mathematical model and a circuit to implement it. There might be a one-to-many mapping if you have formulated your model to suit the electronics that eventually have to implement it. An example:

You want to filter a signal (your mathematical operation) and you know from your experience with signal processing that you can approximate your filter operation with an analog linear filter. Here you're in luck, because you have plenty of options with regards to filter topologies that implement linear filters. Which filter topology will you choose? Each has its own advantages/drawbacks that will affect the design of the rest of your circuit.
Electronic filter topology

You want to take a general mathematical model and apply some transformation that outputs a circuit that implements it. In reality, it works the other way around. You have to use your knowledge of analog/digital design to produce a circuit that approximates your mathematical model - your knowledge of certain subclasses of electronics that implement specific things (like analog linear filters) that have systematic design procedures, each with their own advantages/drawbacks.

 

[dijkarte]

Any good software that does circuit design? I somehow create a requirement specification of the system and it produces a circuit?

 

[carlgrace]

Any good software that does circuit design? I somehow create a requirement specification of the system and it produces a circuit?

Nope. If you're talking analog synthesis people have been researching this for decades and have not solved it in anywhere near the way they have solved it for digital.

The whole idea of systematically designing an analog circuit to implement an arbitrary transfer function is simply not the way electronics is done in practice. If you want to do that, use a computer.

Analog circuits are designed and used when they are the appropriate technology to solve a technical problem. Fitness to purpose. Mathematical modeling of circuits runs out of gas really, really quickly. It is quite easy to have a circuit that is quite intractable to solve analytically but using tried-and-true analog concepts can be designed and used in practice (augmented with really, really heavy simulations).

Sedra and Smith is probably the best book to learn the underlying concepts.

Stuff like single-transistor amplifiers (common-drain, common-source, common-gate), feedback, impedance, unilateral vs bilateral circuits, op amps, device characteristics, these are what you should be teaching yourself. Approaching it from a modeling or mathematical standpoint will quickly lead you into frustration, as milesyoung said.

The reason analog design is often characterized as an "art" is chiefly because so many different rules-of-thumb and design techniques are needed to chunk and deal with what truly is mind-boggling complexity. These take time to learn.

 

[CDTOE]

This is an interesting discussion.

I have this question for you. Talking on the university level, is it universally true that the supreme goal of pursuing an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, is to be able to analyze different circuits? the professor who taught me advanced methods of circuit analysis (i.e. Laplace, Fourier..etc), said that design projects, that are taught and requested from undergraduates, are simple and basic, and most of the stuff that they learn, is the analysis of a wide variety of circuit configurations using different methods.

I think that university provides you with guidance, but if you want to go beyond what's taught there, you have to learn and study more than what they provide to you in a three months syllabus. I've taken the first course in electronic circuits, which revolves around diode, BJT and FET, and the only thing we did beside learning how to model and analyze different configurations of these electronic devices, is to design an AC>DC converter using two diode configurations and zener diode as a shunt regulator. We weren't taught how to build amplifiers, small signal aimplifier for instance, but I did it alone in home using Sedra's and Smith's Microelectronic Circuits, and with the help of websites and tutorials.

 

[jim hardy]

interesting indeed.

most of us spent hours poring over analog databooks learning the basics. I was fortunate to have a set of the big blue National Semiconductor books.


National's AN20 and AN31 opamp collection is a start
http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-20.pdf
http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snla140a/snla140a.pdf

here's their introduction to filters
http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snoa224a/snoa224a.pdf

and one for a current input opamp that's handy for simple filters
http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snoa666a/snoa666a.pdf
the Biquad in figure 5 works great, i used it several times

peruse this list
http://www.national.com/apnotes/appnotes_all_1.html

all the manufacturers have their own library, this is just one

and yes there are canned filter programs that give you a circuit and partslist and board layout, but they are too new for me - i haven't yet mastered the cellphone.
Still you have to tell them what you want the filter to do so it's not a "Manna from Heaven..." Surely your school's EE dept has licensed some for teaching.

National's "Simple Switcher" is same thing for switching power supplies.

So yes there's plenty of circuit design software out there, but beware of "Garbage in Gospel out syndrome" . Learn to do it by hand first.

 

[dijkarte]

So far so interesting. I now have an idea about how things work in analog design, from a computer science perspective. While learning the basics I'm also reading about electronic devices. Analog synthesis can be very tricky, creative and robust.

But a random question. I've had a look at the Sera/Smith book, but compared to others like Floyd's or Boylestad's books, its presentation is not that competent. I'm wondering what's special about it? I mean if it's really has something over other microelectronic texts then I would definitely go for it. But from a novice stand point, I cannot judge by quality, but by presentation and content.

And I have not encountered a single text that shows the inner working of an amplifier? or how they invented it? A book on transistor circuits would be awesome. I cannot find any however.

 

[jim hardy]

A book on transistor circuits would be awesome. I cannot find any however.

you just have to get the right buzzwords into google

http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/technologyforinnovators/books.shtml

http://www.ebay.com/itm/T-I-Transistor-Diode-Data-Book-Design-Engineers-/120966395971

https://sites.google.com/site/transistorhistory/Home/us-semiconductor-manufacturers/ti

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0070637377/?tag=pfamazon01-20

http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slod006b/slod006b.pdf



i lean toward TI, they literally "wrote the book"

but see also GE transistor manual, i keep several different editions handy

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000IW9ITE/?tag=pfamazon01-20

http://n4trb.com/AmateurRadio/SemiconductorHistory/GE_Transistor_Manual_2nd_Edition.pdf

have fun. you might find out you're a hardware guy after all !


old jim

 

[dijkarte]

Great links!

Some may disagree with me on this but I think circuit design in general is somehow a closed technology. There are basic building blocks and circuits with their tweaks, but there's no how-to-design strategy or science. So if it's not something taught at undergraduate level then it's very likely an open/research area that has not been well established.

The Analog design sequence looks like:

Guess - Experiment - Test - Refine - Tweak - Analyze

And this includes integrating basic building blocks, filters, oscillators, converters...

VS. civil engineering or mechanical engineering, and this is my guess, it's more systematic and straightforward in a sense that a designer can start a completely new customized system from a scratch. What I'm trying to say there's more flexibility in other engineering disciplines especially software design, where results can be more obvious and predictable than in electric circuit design.

 

[DragonPetter]

there's no how-to-design strategy or science. So if it's not something taught at undergraduate level then it's very likely an open/research area that has not been well established.

Inaccurate. Top down, bottom up, modular, etc. are all elements of circuit design strategies.

The Analog design sequence looks like:

Guess - Experiment - Test - Refine - Tweak - Analyze

Inaccurate. Guess is the least accurate, at least it should be an educated guess. Simulate is missing, and there are more analyze steps in between and before all of those steps.

And this includes integrating basic building blocks, filters, oscillators, converters...

Inaccurate.

VS. civil engineering or mechanical engineering, and this is my guess, it's more systematic and straightforward in a sense that a designer can start a completely new customized system from a scratch.

I don't really see how any of these engineering disciplines (including software engineering) are more systematic or straightforward. EE is probably the most math based of those. I think your confusion lies deeply in the assumption that engineering solutions are to be synthesized out of a set of mathematical rules and an algorithm flow chart with no human input or constraining practicalities.

Practical software design does not even follow this perspective - someone has to design all of the tools, libraries, etc. within a specific programming environment with specific languages. The software does not just appear from an abstracted computer algorithm. Do you need to output a message with count in your software design? Use the standard libraries, because someone made the code for you to use count, to use + and - operators, to declare variables, etc. Just like someone made an opamp for electronics designers to use. Also, computer science != software engineering. The study of algorithms is not as fundamental to engineering as it is to computer science, and it is relevant in different ways - you should stop focusing on this application of an algorithm approach to engineering until you practice the basics.

What I'm trying to say there's more flexibility in other engineering disciplines especially software design, where results can be more obvious and predictable than in electric circuit design.

Software, in general, adds more flexibility to a system, but not for the reasons you give. Circuit theory is very predictable and it can be obvious depending on the person's experience level. I have seen many examples of code that is anything but obvious or predictable.

I get the sense you are coming to all of these conclusions without having actually gotten through an entire electronics book and without doing any practice design projects and maturing and developing your understanding. Again, remember the analogy with writing software. Most people write their first "hello world" program and progressively more complicated designs to solve certain problems without knowing much about software engineering theory and especially without knowing much about pure abstracted computer science. I don't understand why you insist on classifying/criticizing electronics design with respect to your computer science experiences, especially when you're just learning the basics of electronics.

 

[dijkarte]

Inaccurate.

I don't think so.

I don't really see how any of these engineering disciplines (including software engineering) are more systematic or straightforward. EE is probably the most math based of those.

The latter sentence answers your confusion. Because circuit design is very math intensive, so it becomes less intuitive at least for our human brain.

I don't understand why you insist on classifying electronics with respect to your computer science experiences.

Because I'm not learning the traditional way. I think out of the box even if it sometimes does not make sense.

 

[DragonPetter]

The latter sentence answers your confusion. Because circuit design is very math intensive, so it becomes less intuitive at least for our human brain.

I do not see how this supports your argument that electronics design is less systematic and straightforward. Math helps us hold all things in order and helps us to describe and predict systems. Intuition often fails us, so why would we design based on just intuition? Unless that intuition comes from decades of experience and repeatedly cross-referenced with math, it is not systematic or straightforward and your latest claim also deviates far from your initial argument that you want an algorithmic approach, which would require 0 intuition.

Because I'm not learning the traditional way. I think out of the box even if it sometimes does not make sense.

Thinking outside of the box means to forcibly apply your past experiences (computer science) to something unrelated and new to you? That is more like thinking inside a prison cell. Most of what you have claimed in your posts is inaccurate and naive because you have not been exposed to the stuff enough to make those claims, so I would not say you are thinking outside of the box unless we agree that lots of inaccurate and false ideas exist outside of that box too.

 

[dijkarte]

Most of what you have claimed in your posts is inaccurate and naive because you have not been exposed to the stuff enough to make those claims.

Your arguments and posts are all contradicting and naive. You may have the educational background but I doubt you have the real experience in the field. In fact, you are arguing against yourself.

What I've been trying to discuss with open-minded people to new ideas, is how to approach learning electronics as "new subject," which is not indeed. CS & EE are very very related and complementary to each other, other wise you are thinking a mechanical transistor made of rocks. :D

 

[DragonPetter]

Your arguments and posts are all contradicting and naive. You may have the educational background but I doubt you have the real experience in the field. In fact, you are arguing against yourself.

What I've been trying to discuss with open-minded people to new ideas, is how to approach learning electronics as "new subject," which is not indeed. CS & EE are very very related and complementary to each other, other wise you are thinking a mechanical transistor made of rocks. :D

I'm not going to defend what you call contradicting and naive. I disagree, but I have no reason to defend against that as it seems like a waste of effort at this point. I at least gave examples of why your claims are inaccurate.

The difference between me stating that you don't have the experience to make your claims, and you stating that I don't have the experience is that this whole thread is under the premise that you're new to electronics, and so I did not mean it as an insult, but as a general statement. I'm sorry if you took it personally. My experience is not much compared to many here, which is a good thing for me, but I have designed, built, and tested analog filters, motherboards, control electronics, and many other circuits enough to understand that what you claim is not accurate and misinformed, and it is very unhelpful to yourself to keep sticking to these beliefs if you want to learn electronics. I know enough to understand my own shortcomings/room for improvement (things I wasn't even aware of when I started learning electronics) which is irrelevant to this thread.

Again, I almost have the sense that you claim most of this knowing its false, and it is your method for getting someone to explain to you why it is false. You seem to be asking for a short cut or easy approach to be a good electronics engineer. Learning to design analog circuits is frustrating and can hurt confidence, but these methods are not productive to reassure yourself that you are right and the electronics discipline is wrong. This gets back to my repeated suggestion that you actually start studying specific circuits and do some projects so that you can come here with specific questions rather than making bold sweeping statements about an entire field. That's what I do when I'm learning something new here. You will get a lot more help with specific questions than making convoluted and vague statements and waiting for someone to verify/disagree with your beliefs for self validation.

I apologize if my attempt to help you understand electronics design included bursting your preconceived bubble of what electronics design is or, according to you, should be. I would never go into the software engineering/computer science forum and claim that all of their ideas and methods should be analogous to analog circuit design or that I want them to teach me how to write a software project as if I were building a hardware circuit. Even if they wasted their effort on me, I would not gain anything from that approach and would only slow myself down.

 

[dijkarte]

I'm just exploring the field before I go deeply into the subjects. One reason I hate universities is the way they teach, very linear and limiting. Effective learning should start horizontal and then narrow it down. I've seen many students in their middle years of study change majors because they had not been exposed to the core field subjects until very late. Many students go through their course class blindly without knowing what's next and how it's related to the previous subject. Teaching requires presentation, give the learners a broad view of the subject and topics, narrow it down while relating subjects. However what happens is a very passive course-note presentation which becomes deadly boring over time. And this costs a lot.

I could enroll in an EE program but really do I need to do this again and then end up teaching myself the subjects after graduation? Lesson learned. Academia can be very tempting but it does not work for everyone, people think and learn differently. It's probably the paper we seek but I mean enough is enough. No more time and $$$ to waste.

The idea is to learn independently and approach different subjects using already acquired knowledge on other related subjects. Nothing wrong with this. I'm not saying the circuit design has to be programming or how to learn it using algorithms.

When I said less systematic I did not mean there's no strategy or design methodology, it's just the way it works makes it different and less intuitive in design. I know you an EE can predict the functionality of the well known building blocks but not a complex circuit I build out of 100os transistors. It just takes longer than looking at a mechanical system and say this does bla bla bla...or reading the 1000 line of code and figure out what it does in general.

And this is because in circuits you don't work with visual mechanical system that's intuitive to our brain perception.

 

[DragonPetter]

I'm just exploring the field before I go deeply into the subjects. One reason I hate universities is the way they teach, very linear and limiting. Effective learning should start horizontal and then narrow it down. I've seen many students in their middle years of study change majors because they had not been exposed to the core field subjects until very late. Many students go through their course class blindly without knowing what's next and how it's related to the previous subject. Teaching requires presentation, give the learners a broad view of the subject and topics, narrow it down while relating subjects. However what happens is a very passive course-note presentation which becomes deadly boring over time. And this costs a lot.

I could enroll in an EE program but really do I need to do this again and then end up teaching myself the subjects after graduation? Lesson learned. Academia can be very tempting but it does not work for everyone, people think and learn differently. It's probably the paper we seek but I mean enough is enough. No more time and $$$ to waste.

Again, this is all your personal opinion and irrelevant to everything else in this thread. I agree with some of what you say. Some of it comes off as frustration and arrogance, but I could be wrong. Its just your opinion and doesn't have anything to do with trying to apply computer science concepts to electronics design. You could keep your philosophy on learning, and just ask much more relevant questions. And when people give you answers, you could take them as useful rather than reject them because they do not fit your already decided perspective.

The idea is to learn independently and approach different subjects using already acquired knowledge on other related subjects. Nothing wrong with this. I'm not saying the circuit design has to be programming or how to learn it using algorithms.

Nothing wrong, unless you keep insisting on fitting a square peg into a round hole, and judge one discipline based on its lack of qualities of another and therefore assume that it does not have as much merit. I gave you examples of why I think circuit design is just as systematic as software design. There is no such thing as practical software synthesizing from a generic algorithm or set of basic rules. There are thousands of software engineers who approach problems very similar to how any other kind of engineer approaches problems, and it is not starting with algorithms or computer science theory to tell them what to do.

When I said less systematic I did not mean there's no strategy or design methodology, it's just the way it works makes it different and less intuitive in design. I know you an EE can predict the functionality of the well known building blocks but not a complex circuit I build out of 100os transistors. It just takes longer than looking at a mechanical system and say this does bla bla bla...or reading the 1000 line of code and figure out what it does in general.

And this is because in circuits you don't work with visual mechanical system that's intuitive to our brain perception.

It is less intuitive to you, as someone who is "new to electronics", hint: start working with it more - more going "deeply into the subjects" and less "exploring the field" before you should make the assumptions and claims that you have made. I can look at an algorithm, but that doesn't mean it will be intuitive to me until I start thinking in its syntax, context, motives, and methods. Should I start criticizing or comparing it to something I know better, like circuit design, just because it isn't intuitive to me immediately?

I cannot predict how a circuit of 1000s of transistors will work any better than you can tell me how an executable file of 10000000000s of 1s and 0s will work, no matter how "computer science correct" that code was written in.

 

[dijkarte]

I could be wrong. Now I have a strong feeling that circuit design is something very easy and fun when you have the basics.

 

[DragonPetter]

I could be wrong. Now I have a strong feeling that circuit design is something very easy and fun when you have the basics.

I would not call it very easy since there is always more to learn, but it is very fun and the basics to one person is advanced to another. So, when you have the basics, you will be challenged with harder things, and then when those become basics, you move onto something even harder, and it goes on and on into more complex things.

You seem motivated and I think you will enjoy it a lot when you get involved with a project and things will start to naturally click. From that point, you will be able to tell yourself more answers to this question relating design to computer science. If you understand most of what is going on in your electronics books, the next step is to make something, and the project should be simple enough to isolate different concepts rather than to try everything at once.

 

[jim hardy]

I could be wrong. Now I have a strong feeling that circuit design is something very easy and fun when you have the basics.

I'm aware of a lot of hobbyist electonic circuit bulletin boards

but not so for programming bulletin boards.

Are there sites where you software guys swap subroutines, like we swap circiuts?


At risk of being a bore, i'll repost my earlier statement :

I don't see programmers as different from hardware guys, just they use different tools.

In the computer courses i took i did notice a different psychological makeup though.
Programmers are more language oriented. Their conversation sparkles, they work anagrams and crossword puzzles at breaktime, and are reading the current bestseller books.
Hardware guys (myself included) are generally less eloquent, discuss machinery and home workshop projects at breaktime, and are reading technical journals.

nobody has cornered the market on excellence or creativity.
The very best programmers i ever knew were fluent in both hardware and software, and came up through the hardware ranks.


You programmers do have an advantage though - once it's right, software doesn't break.
But a hardware malfunction can make it look like it did and programming skill is required to flush that out.
Real life example of that - A programmer and i once flushed out a twenty nanosecond second timing overlap that came round once every twenty minutes. He adjusted data sequences while i ran the logic analyzer and o'scope. It was a 'needle in a haystack' that only showed itself about one second total out of a a year..

So the fields are symbiotic.

If you have interest in circiuts by all means learn them. High Fidelity can give you tremedous plesaure. Morbius, a physicist who sometimes contributes here, is an audiophile guy. Many very bright people find that a relaxing and rewarding hobby. And so do some plodders like me.

old jim