3 ms·

So, this course seems to be about going into the depth, I guess the chemistry and physics, of solid state electronics. Diodes, transistors, etc. But do I need

So, this course seems to be about going into the depth, I guess the chemistry and physics, of solid state electronics. Diodes, transistors, etc. But do I need to spend 45 hours watching this to empower me to successfully design, say, a microcomputer board? A Z80? 6502? Even an 8088? Do I need this level of depth to get a microcontroller to make a stepper motor do what I want to do (whatever that may be)? Or a power circuit to drive a higher power motor controller? (Do I need relays for that? Power transistors? Big capacitors?) Because that's what I think many who are interested in "electronics" want to do. Will the lack of understanding of a PN junction cause those kinds of projects to fail? Or be more difficult to do? For someone interested in these kinds of projects, is there a better place to put 45 hours of study? Perhaps just wiring stuff together, stamping out fires, and tracing down the smoky parts?

epolanski 3y ago
45 hours of watching is not the hard part, it is actually learning and understanding and exercising. I've followed few MIT courses (mostly on algebra, category theory and some more CS-related) and while a video took me 1 hour, the actual amount of time around it (writing down the important things, summarizing, exercising, finding answers about the topics touched) was much more. Between twice and 4 times the amount. On that front in-person education has definitely two benefits: you have peers in your same situation with whom you can discuss the topics and obviously access to teachers and their assistants.
chongli 3y ago
Do I need this level of depth to get a microcontroller to make a stepper motor do what I want to do (whatever that may be) Dave over at the EEVBlog likes to draw a distinction here. He distinguishes between people who want to learn electronics (build power supplies, radios), that is, analog circuits, from people who want put together Arduino projects. He refers to the latter as more of embedded programming rather than electronics. The linked course definitely leans way over to the side of the former. If you’re more interested in the latter, there are tons of YouTube channels out there about building projects with the Arduino.
- peteforde 3y ago
  Possibly OT and possibly triggering, but I had to stop watching Dave's videos because he matches my personal definition of giant gatekeeping asshole. I have learned a ton from him over the years, but when you watch something like his video about Flux, it's hard not to feel a little gross. This is subjective, but when you spend a lot of time making sweeping generalizations and then quite literally read the fawning comments as though an echo chamber proves your point... that's when I have to check out. https://youtu.be/x5Yslag6Mxk?si=FjL8lHjFhWtFsWun&t=45 https://youtu.be/x5Yslag6Mxk?si=FjL8lHjFhWtFsWun&t=45 My bias is that I've been using Flux for about a year and while it's not without flaws... it's actually pretty great. TL;DR: dividing people who are building things with electronics into "real" vs "embedded" is just a way to enforce a very artificial hierarchy where you're conveniently always at the top.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chongli 3y ago
    artificial hierarchy There is an artificial hierarchy here but it’s not the one you’re thinking of. It’s a hierarchy of abstractions. At the lowest level of abstraction you’re dealing with physics, Maxwell’s equations, materials and their properties. Above that you have the lumped matter abstraction (conductors, resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes, transistors). Above that you have modular circuit components, ICs, digital logic. Above that you have CPUs, instruction sets, assembly language… This abstraction continues all the way up through software engineering. The reason Dave makes this distinction is not because he wants to gatekeep. It’s because he wants people to learn how to build their own circuits rather than combining modules built by others. This is no different from a programmer telling someone to learn a programming language to build their own software rather than using Microsoft Office etc. Dave does plenty of embedded programming himself. He uses Arduinos when the project calls for them. He just wants people to understand that there’s a whole lot more to understand when you go to a lower level of abstraction (lumped matter components). I think it’s also an important distinction to be made because a lot of businesses have sprung up within the Arduino ecosystem and it’s brought a lot of new people into the electronics world. These folks are excited and enthusiastic but they often lack knowledge of electronics fundamentals and so they struggle to troubleshoot when things go wrong. It’s important to help these people find the resources they need to learn electronics so they don’t need to rely on others to troubleshoot their circuits.
joshvm 3y ago
I'd argue as a hobbyist you can get away with "block level" design - understand enough to know what you need, read datasheets and implement a reference design. For example making a stepper motor do what you want - probably not, just buy a driver board and look at example code and a reference circuit. Same goes for a high power motor: either you buy a pre-made board that has the right spec, or you look up a reference circuit with a common control IC. Most digital design can be done in this way; you need to know how to program as well. Analog is in some ways more complicated. But there are lots of reference designs for blocks like filters and amplifiers and you can look at the pros/cons of different circuits. A good companion to this sort of design work is Horowitz and Hill. Even high frequency board design can mostly be achieved around by following best practices unless you're doing stripline RF stuff. The difference lies in things like designing extremely efficient circuits (optimize for part number, cost, etc) and designing boards that can be certified. You can get away with a lot if you're not designing to a tight spec.
znpy 3y ago
Sure you’re right, go watch something else.

epolanski 3y ago

45 hours of watching is not the hard part, it is actually learning and understanding and exercising. I've followed few MIT courses (mostly on algebra, category theory and some more CS-related) and while a video took me 1 hour, the actual amount of time around it (writing down the important things, summarizing, exercising, finding answers about the topics touched) was much more. Between twice and 4 times the amount. On that front in-person education has definitely two benefits: you have peers in your same situation with whom you can discuss the topics and obviously access to teachers and their assistants.

chongli 3y ago

Do I need this level of depth to get a microcontroller to make a stepper motor do what I want to do (whatever that may be) Dave over at the EEVBlog likes to draw a distinction here. He distinguishes between people who want to learn electronics (build power supplies, radios), that is, analog circuits, from people who want put together Arduino projects. He refers to the latter as more of embedded programming rather than electronics. The linked course definitely leans way over to the side of the former. If you’re more interested in the latter, there are tons of YouTube channels out there about building projects with the Arduino.

peteforde 3y ago
Possibly OT and possibly triggering, but I had to stop watching Dave's videos because he matches my personal definition of giant gatekeeping asshole. I have learned a ton from him over the years, but when you watch something like his video about Flux, it's hard not to feel a little gross. This is subjective, but when you spend a lot of time making sweeping generalizations and then quite literally read the fawning comments as though an echo chamber proves your point... that's when I have to check out. https://youtu.be/x5Yslag6Mxk?si=FjL8lHjFhWtFsWun&t=45 https://youtu.be/x5Yslag6Mxk?si=FjL8lHjFhWtFsWun&t=45 My bias is that I've been using Flux for about a year and while it's not without flaws... it's actually pretty great. TL;DR: dividing people who are building things with electronics into "real" vs "embedded" is just a way to enforce a very artificial hierarchy where you're conveniently always at the top.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chongli 3y ago
  artificial hierarchy There is an artificial hierarchy here but it’s not the one you’re thinking of. It’s a hierarchy of abstractions. At the lowest level of abstraction you’re dealing with physics, Maxwell’s equations, materials and their properties. Above that you have the lumped matter abstraction (conductors, resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes, transistors). Above that you have modular circuit components, ICs, digital logic. Above that you have CPUs, instruction sets, assembly language… This abstraction continues all the way up through software engineering. The reason Dave makes this distinction is not because he wants to gatekeep. It’s because he wants people to learn how to build their own circuits rather than combining modules built by others. This is no different from a programmer telling someone to learn a programming language to build their own software rather than using Microsoft Office etc. Dave does plenty of embedded programming himself. He uses Arduinos when the project calls for them. He just wants people to understand that there’s a whole lot more to understand when you go to a lower level of abstraction (lumped matter components). I think it’s also an important distinction to be made because a lot of businesses have sprung up within the Arduino ecosystem and it’s brought a lot of new people into the electronics world. These folks are excited and enthusiastic but they often lack knowledge of electronics fundamentals and so they struggle to troubleshoot when things go wrong. It’s important to help these people find the resources they need to learn electronics so they don’t need to rely on others to troubleshoot their circuits.

joshvm 3y ago

I'd argue as a hobbyist you can get away with "block level" design - understand enough to know what you need, read datasheets and implement a reference design. For example making a stepper motor do what you want - probably not, just buy a driver board and look at example code and a reference circuit. Same goes for a high power motor: either you buy a pre-made board that has the right spec, or you look up a reference circuit with a common control IC. Most digital design can be done in this way; you need to know how to program as well. Analog is in some ways more complicated. But there are lots of reference designs for blocks like filters and amplifiers and you can look at the pros/cons of different circuits. A good companion to this sort of design work is Horowitz and Hill. Even high frequency board design can mostly be achieved around by following best practices unless you're doing stripline RF stuff. The difference lies in things like designing extremely efficient circuits (optimize for part number, cost, etc) and designing boards that can be certified. You can get away with a lot if you're not designing to a tight spec.

znpy 3y ago

Sure you’re right, go watch something else.