Ohm's Law Problem
in [Design]
|
Prev: A novel way to measure magnetic fields, and DC current withouta shunt?
Next: 240V AC power switch - based on current drawn from outlet
From: Joerg on 16 Feb 2010 12:10 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:30 -0800, Joerg > <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> <snip> >> It's much more important to >> experiment, experiment, experiment, get a "feel" for what works, _then_ >> dive into the theory. Not the other way around. Just my 2 cents. > > It's hard for most of us to get a feel for what works without > first having some idea of what to expect. Theory is primary > to interpreting and understanding experimental result. > > What isn't known through theory defines the word 'random.' > That would be the professor's thought process. To us back then things we didn't understand were not random at all. For example, you simply "knew" that the Q of a power matching network had to be at least 10 or you'd get into EMI troubles. Or that grid-bias tube stages were way more stable by nature. Or that certain modes of operation in a transistor could lead to a phssst ... *BANG* (later I learned about the concept of a SOA), and so on. If it was all random we'd have had much more failing parts and homebrew devices, but we didn't. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Jim Thompson on 16 Feb 2010 12:13 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:10:06 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:30 -0800, Joerg >> <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> <snip> >>> It's much more important to >>> experiment, experiment, experiment, get a "feel" for what works, _then_ >>> dive into the theory. Not the other way around. Just my 2 cents. >> >> It's hard for most of us to get a feel for what works without >> first having some idea of what to expect. Theory is primary >> to interpreting and understanding experimental result. >> >> What isn't known through theory defines the word 'random.' >> > >That would be the professor's thought process. To us back then things we >didn't understand were not random at all. For example, you simply "knew" >that the Q of a power matching network had to be at least 10 or you'd >get into EMI troubles. Or that grid-bias tube stages were way more >stable by nature. Or that certain modes of operation in a transistor >could lead to a phssst ... *BANG* (later I learned about the concept of >a SOA), and so on. > >If it was all random we'd have had much more failing parts and homebrew >devices, but we didn't. "phssst ... *BANG*" - Joerg "Failure Noise du Jour" Schulze-Clewing ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: life imitates life on 16 Feb 2010 09:37 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:32:54 -0800, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:30 -0800, Joerg ><invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >><snip> >>It's much more important to >>experiment, experiment, experiment, get a "feel" for what works, _then_ >>dive into the theory. Not the other way around. Just my 2 cents. > >It's hard for most of us to get a feel for what works without >first having some idea of what to expect. Theory is primary >to interpreting and understanding experimental result. > >What isn't known through theory defines the word 'random.' > >Jon As yet unobserved.
From: John Larkin on 16 Feb 2010 12:19 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:32:54 -0800, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:30 -0800, Joerg ><invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >><snip> >>It's much more important to >>experiment, experiment, experiment, get a "feel" for what works, _then_ >>dive into the theory. Not the other way around. Just my 2 cents. > >It's hard for most of us to get a feel for what works without >first having some idea of what to expect. Theory is primary >to interpreting and understanding experimental result. > >What isn't known through theory defines the word 'random.' > >Jon Some engineering is empirical, based on experience, experiment, and instinct. Just because there's no effective theory doesn't mean we can't design things that work. The best way to get a feel for what works is to build things. Most good electronics designers did that when they were fairly young, before they understood much theory. John
From: Joerg on 16 Feb 2010 12:22
Jim Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:10:06 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:30 -0800, Joerg >>> <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> <snip> >>>> It's much more important to >>>> experiment, experiment, experiment, get a "feel" for what works, _then_ >>>> dive into the theory. Not the other way around. Just my 2 cents. >>> It's hard for most of us to get a feel for what works without >>> first having some idea of what to expect. Theory is primary >>> to interpreting and understanding experimental result. >>> >>> What isn't known through theory defines the word 'random.' >>> >> That would be the professor's thought process. To us back then things we >> didn't understand were not random at all. For example, you simply "knew" >> that the Q of a power matching network had to be at least 10 or you'd >> get into EMI troubles. Or that grid-bias tube stages were way more >> stable by nature. Or that certain modes of operation in a transistor >> could lead to a phssst ... *BANG* (later I learned about the concept of >> a SOA), and so on. >> >> If it was all random we'd have had much more failing parts and homebrew >> devices, but we didn't. > > "phssst ... *BANG*" - Joerg "Failure Noise du Jour" Schulze-Clewing > ;-) > Actually back then I did more with tubes, because they were essentially free. Then the failures sounded more like this: .... tck ....... tck .... tck .. tck .. t .. t ..TICK ... pheeeooouu ... *POF* ... followed by the sound of falling glass pieces. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |