Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is radio
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:21:55 -0500, John H. Guillory
wrote: Engineers are known for knowing all the knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage. I are an engineer and I know which end of the soldering iron to grab. Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. Nope. These daze, engineers do all their design work on a computah. The design process is called direct to manufacturer. There is no hand built prototype stage. They don't need to strip wires or solder anything. Worst case is they might use a hot air SMT rework station to replace a part, or fix a layout error. If it doesn't work right, the engineer goes back to the computah simulations, fixes it, and has the prototype shop robots build another revision. These are todays engineers, not the cave man variety (like me) that had to build their own prototypes, strip their own wires, and steal parts from production to build prototypes. Those days are long gone, except maybe in garage operations. Open a cell phone and tell my you can build it by hand with your soldering iron and wire stripper. But gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential, Baloney. It's the marketing and sales guys that evaluate how something sounds. Engineers use test equipment that measure how it sounds, how well it works, and whether it complies with a multitude of specifications. The numbers are far more sensitive to anomalies than a talk test. On a rare day, there may actually be a talk test, but that's unusual. Incidentally, you can see distortion on a scope long before you can hear it. while the newly licensed short order cook steps up and turns the clarifier slightly and hears a much clearer voice, then tells the Engineer "You go tune the antenna, while I make a connection to this operator!" What's a clarifier? Is that one of those things found on a CB radio? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is radio
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is radio
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:03:29 -0000, wrote:
Do doctors usually know the best way to mop the floors in the hospital? The 11th Dr Who knows how to use a mop. http://www.toplessrobot.com/fez.png http://www.flickr.com/photos/15265256@N03/5143518610/ -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is radio
Wayne wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:03:29 -0000, wrote: Do doctors usually know the best way to mop the floors in the hospital? Quite possibly, yes. I highly doubt most doctors have any knowledge of the floor cleaning products available on the market or their efficacious. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is radio
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:21:55 -0500, John H. Guillory wrote: Engineers are known for knowing all the knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage. I are an engineer and I know which end of the soldering iron to grab. Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. Nope. These daze, engineers do all their design work on a computah. The design process is called direct to manufacturer. There is no hand built prototype stage. They don't need to strip wires or solder anything. Worst case is they might use a hot air SMT rework station to replace a part, or fix a layout error. If it doesn't work right, the engineer goes back to the computah simulations, fixes it, and has the prototype shop robots build another revision. These are todays engineers, not the cave man variety (like me) that had to build their own prototypes, strip their own wires, and steal parts from production to build prototypes. Those days are long gone, except maybe in garage operations. Open a cell phone and tell my you can build it by hand with your soldering iron and wire stripper. Unless you were in a very small operation or talking about REALLY ancient times, engineers as a general rule never did mundane tasks. Those were left to other, lesser paid people, like technicians, draftsmen, and typists. No one in their right mind would pay an engineer to build and test a prototype, draw up the formal schematics, or type up the documentation when there are other people who could do that faster and at a much lower hourly rate. But gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential, Baloney. It's the marketing and sales guys that evaluate how something sounds. Engineers use test equipment that measure how it sounds, how well it works, and whether it complies with a multitude of specifications. The numbers are far more sensitive to anomalies than a talk test. On a rare day, there may actually be a talk test, but that's unusual. Incidentally, you can see distortion on a scope long before you can hear it. Most of the places I worked, the testing was done by techicians who wrote up a test results report for the engineers and the engineers only got involved if something was hinky in the test results. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is radio
"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci ... On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:04:43 -0000, wrote: Unless you were in a very small operation or talking about REALLY ancient times, engineers as a general rule never did mundane tasks. Those were left to other, lesser paid people, like technicians, draftsmen, and typists. No one in their right mind would pay an engineer to build and test a prototype, draw up the formal schematics, or type up the documentation when there are other people who could do that faster and at a much lower hourly rate. True for most companies, but not true for every place that I've worked. It is not true for every R&D place. There no "draw up the formal schematics, or type up the documentation" The each prototype is simmillar to something older. The R&D people take the copy of the simmillar documentation and change the identification number and dimensions, materials etc.. The new prototype documentation is ready in a few hours. One such small company made it a point of having the engineer personally perform every step of the production cycle from incoming inspection to shipping. At some point, I did incoming inspection (QA), parts stuffing, wave soldering, lead trimming, final assembly, cable harnesses, production test, QA test, burn-in setup, and shipping. There was no attempt utilize expensive engineering talent for these jobs. It was a very necessary learning experience that paid off handsomely in improved efficiency. It's one thing to stand aside and just watch someone do their job. It's quite another to actually sit down and do it. For example, we had a small 3 turn coil that was hand wound on a form. Production people could average about 5 coils per hour, which stunk. I sat down for several hours, made numerous changes, found numerous problems that nobody bothered to identify, and was able to crank out about 40 coils per hour. However, my fingers felt like they were going to fall off after about an hour. This wasn't going to work. The experience was sufficient to justify the design and construction of an automatic coil winder, that could do about 200 coils per hour. When I worked for larger companies, I did much the same thing. I experienced some initial resistance but got the attention of production by breaking a few rules, but which dramatically improved efficiency. I arranged to have the drawings and assembly instructions translated into several languages. While assemblers were expected to know English, they were not proficient in technical English. From then on, the suggestions and changes came quickly. Unfortunately, I still had products to finish, but was allowed about 25% of my time to do the production engineering function. An engineer (or manager) that sits behind a computer, never leaves the office, never sits on the production line, never understands how things are built, and never has an understanding of anyone elses job, will eventually make some rather nasty mistakes. Using engineering talent for these functions is not a good idea for extended periods, but is a good idea for the short periods needed to gain the necessary experience. Incidentally, in the distant past, one of my consulting jobs was cleaning up the computerized RF board layouts produced by an assortment of PCB designers, that didn't seem to understand that RF travels in roughly straight lines, and that bypassing requires a low impedance ground, not a mass of spaghetti wiring. Most of the places I worked, the testing was done by techicians who wrote up a test results report for the engineers and the engineers only got involved if something was hinky in the test results. Likewise. Unfortunately, production test was reluctant to call engineering for help because we would tend to be rather disruptive. When I had to fix things using paper reports (usually incoherent) and ECO's (engineering change orders), it took much longer and many tries to fix it correctly. When I sat down and saw the problem for myself, it was usually fixed the first time, and usually without attendant piles of paper going in both directions. I couldn't do much of that at larger companies, but when I was asked for an overnight solution, that was the only way. It is obvious that you was working in R&D places. If a prototype is a succes then the formal documentation is made by another staff. S* |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is radio
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:36:52 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: It is obvious that you was working in R&D places. Wrong. I worked for several manufacturers as an employee and as a consultant. There was no R&D and I have never done any R&D. If a prototype is a succes then the formal documentation is made by another staff. I never produced any formal documentation at any company. I did what was needed to get a product into production and occasionally to scribble something for trade journals and advertising. The prototype and documentation were a parallel effort in order to save time. It was quite common to do the prototype in stages, with sections of the design being frozen before the final product had been tested. This allowed some of the documentation to be completed before the prototype was completed. The closest approximation of something formal were two radio direction finders for the US Coast Guard. The documentation was done by a professional tech manual writer. I wrote most of the raw text and sketched some of the drawings. http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/AN-SRD-21/ http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/AN-SRD-22/ -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is radio
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
It is not true for every R&D place. No one said anything about "R&D". There no "draw up the formal schematics, or type up the documentation" Utter nonsense. The each prototype is simmillar to something older. The R&D people take the copy of the simmillar documentation and change the identification number and dimensions, materials etc.. The new prototype documentation is ready in a few hours. More utter nonsense. It is obvious that you was working in R&D places. No, to someone that actually knows something, it is obvious he was mostly working in places that manufactured products. If a prototype is a succes then the formal documentation is made by another staff. Formal documentation is usually produced by a tech writter with inputs from engineering and marketing. Well, now we have another subject that you know absolutely nothing about and just babble nonsense. You really are a babbling, ignorant, ineducable, idiot. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
What exactly is radio
"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci ... On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:36:52 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: It is obvious that you was working in R&D places. Wrong. I worked for several manufacturers as an employee and as a consultant. There was no R&D and I have never done any R&D. "New product design and development is more often than not a crucial factor in the survival of a company. In an industry that is changing fast, firms must continually revise their design and range of products. . "In general, R&D activities are conducted by specialized units or centers belonging to companies" Each manufacturer has such specialized units or centers belonging to companies. S* |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|