Would your techs. do this?

Hi:

I am currently considering the design of an fuel injector driver, some
aspects of which have been discussed here already. This is a
substantial power electronics design problem, involving as well feedback
control loop design. As with most projects that I do, I have the task
of doing every aspect of it without any outside guidance, except for
what I might request, which usually happens here on s.e.d because there
are really no EEs in my facility, except for two who aren't in my dept.
No electrical engineer is over me to give me schematics to build or to
do the calculations for me. I do everything from conceptual design,
theoretical calcs. if needed, simulations and modeling, PCB design,
layout, fabrication, population, testing, and final packaging. If the
design requires uC/uP, I program it myself.

I'm just wondering if this is a typical task list for techs. out there
in other industries and institutions. Most of the techs. here do not do
any sort of design that goes beyond the level of theory contained in
ohms law, 1/(2 pi RC), and the op-amp circuits of inverting,
non-inverting, and follower. Some can program, and some are venturing
into simple uC projects, which only started after I came here and
prodded some folks. In fact, no one in my facility made PCBs until I
started encouraging it. When I came here in 1999, we were still using
only LSTTL and wire wrapping! But in terms of EE type theoretical
design work at the level of even AC circuit complex algebra, good
heavens not Laplace or Fourier, or even SPICE modeling, this just isn't
done by techs. here.

I also don't have a EE or even E-tech. background as I have a BS in
Chemistry, and got hired to be a laser/optical technologist. When I
started in 1999 I had the level of knowledge of electronics of basic
logic gates, barely understood what to do with a flip-flop, never
touched a microprocessor (though I had programmed the 8086 PC
extensively in C and .asm), basic DC, AC, and time domain circuit
analysis (I had been studying the subject of circuit analysis in an EE
text, and have just about completed it.) I've improved drastically
since that time, but still have lots of holes in my knowledge scattered
throughout the palette of topics a EE should know, since that is what
happens when you are self-taught. The best thing I did in college was
get a math minor, which has turned out to be more useful than my major.

What level of design is typically expected of "technologists", and how
would you describe the dividing line between engineer behavior and tech.
behavior?

Thanks for comments.

--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA

 

I think you should

demand a substantial raise.

The government can afford it ;-)

____________________________________

 

Chris,

For the type of design you're doing, I'd say you're very comfortably
performing 'engineering.' There's a pretty broad overlap between 'high end
technican' and 'low end engineer,' and I'd even venture that many of today's
so called 'engineers' would have been more appripriately classified as
'technicians' some decades back.

I'd avoid getting on a soapbox and ranting about this, but my personal
conclusion was that titles are pretty meaningless. Just call yourself an
'electronics designer' or whatever makes you happy and you'll be fine. Of
course, I realize you might be asking this question based on figuring you're
worth more than what your present employers pays you -- in that case, by all
means, pursue getting yourself re-classified. Anyone who'll refuse to pay
you more or re-classify you given clear evidence that you contribute well
above and beyond the others with your same pay isn't someone worth working
for. This is especially true if they attempt to justify this by saying
something like, 'you're already at the top of your pay range!' or 'we can't
reclassify you unless you obtain a [degree, certification, accreditation,
etc] first' (when you already possess the skills such a label would imply).

Unfortunately there are people who are so clueless they'd sooner let you
quit they pay you well, but this shouldn't be a deterrent: There are plenty
of people who do recognize talent when they see it and will compensate you
commensurately.

---Joel Kolstad

 

If I were you, I'd consider asking for a considerable raise in rank/pay.

Scratch asking above, and insert demanding.

 

Yes. Don't worry, I'm not ranting. It's more of a contemplation.
Actually, I'm pretty happy with my title and responsibilities.

And salary too, actually.

Don't really have that problem. It is somewhat peculiar though, that
while I am convinced that the mechanical engineers and scientists who I
work for don't have much idea of what I do, they seem to respond fairly
well to the case I make each year about what I'm doing. So fortunately,
even in a bad economy, they have treated me with pleasant rewards.

But for some reason I have this question on my mind frequently. Perhaps
because I am somewhat isolated. Sometimes I think it would be better to
have some engineers around like the ones I know here. Then again,
sometimes I'm awfully glad they aren't here!

Good day!


--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA

 

Hi Chris:

I used to teach at a University that offered a B.S. degree in Electrical
Engineering Technology. This degree is not universally accepted in the
engineering community. Some of our graduates found themselves treated and
paid as technicians, and others as engineers. There are certain companies
that have rigid definitions for engineers and for technicians. There are
others who reward performance ... both in pay and classification. I know of
high school graduates who are classified and paid as engineers. I know of
graduate engineers who do mind-numbing paper work hour after hour, day after
day.

If you are being treated well and being handed challenges that you can deal
with, who cares?

 

One maybe-useful distinction is that engineers apply science
quantitatively (ie, use theory to make mathematical predictions of
system behavior) and technicians, well, don't. The ownership of an
engineering degree is only suggestive of which side of this divide one
will fall on. Engineering education *does* emphasize (sometimes too
much?) the mathematical analysis of dynamic systems.

John

 

It is interesting to note that most graduate engineers do not consider
themselves successful until they become non technical upper level managers
and most technicians do not consider success until the become engineers.
IMHO S.E.D. contains many upper level technical people, some grads some not.
When I was in your position I informed my bosses that I expected a 10%
raise each year and if my output was not worthy of that, I would have to
move on. I had to move a couple of times in 15 years but it was easy to
double my starting salary.
Chris, you are way smarter than I, so the sky is the limit. Just remember
us when you write " The Complete Art of Electronics".
regards
harry

 

No way. This is engineers work, and a pretty flexible engineer with an
unusual amount of intitiative at that.

My experience with LaPlace transforms is that most electronic
engineers learn just enough about them to pass the examination, then
forget it all forever. The first time I needed a LaPlace transform, I
solved the differential equations - then got told that there was an
easier way. The next time, I copied the relevant section from a new
graduate's lecture notes.

Neither do I - though I went on to get a Ph.D. in chemistry before I
eneded up in electronics.

As opposed to the holes in the knowledge of those who have been
properly taught, partly due to courses barely passed and swiftly
forgotten, and partly due to cheap-skate teaching and lab classes.

My maths minor was a particularly tedious second year course, where I
did enough work to pass, but very little of the work - which was all
about solving differential equations - has stayed with me. Theory of
Computation part 1, which I did as an isolated lecture coures while I
was completing my Ph.D., was a lot more interesting, and a lot more
useful.

My expereience with technicians - even the best and most enthusiastic
of our technicians - was that they needed a lot of hand-holding, and
that there were large chunks of stuff that you had to do for them
because they didn't have the math to understand what was going on.

Engineers could usually be relied on to grasp what they needed to know
once they were told, and could be left with a text-book or two to sort
things out for themselves. Engineers with more intitiative were rare
and valuable.

Management doesn't like engineers with initiative - changing the plan
so that you can do something right is undisciplined, and wrecks their
nicely planned time-tables. They are much happier with plodders, and
are totally reconciled to endless weeks of bug-hunting, as long as it
is planned in as "systems test phase".

 

Yep, this is almost word-for-word how I would describe it. I don't
think the education is too analysis heavy, but it isn't good if students
don't get a hefty dose of lab. Heck, the only obstacle at this point to
my being able to do more difficult designs is a lack of theoretical
understanding. Fortunately I have skimmed enough material to at least
know what I don't know, and where to go to learn it. But it can be next
to impossible to find the time anymore.

Thanks for the input!

--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA

 

The best of s.e.d. are truly amazing.

10% is alot to ask for for government work. At least this year I got
twice the average raise. Considering the funding cuts and bad economy,
I am pretty happy about this.

Oof! Thanks for the kind encouragement. I hope to keep learning. If I
can ever catch up to what I consider the completion of the typical BSEE
curriculum, and perhaps a few extra points in DSP and some other
interesting topics, I'll be happy. But the folks I admire in this group
including you still tower over me in many areas.

P.S. I've been distracted by a venture into the hobby of digital SLR
photography, but I have made a nice PCB for the ZVS flyback implemented
to power my Nixie clock design as planned, and am slowly working through
calculations for a smaller transformer design. Expect to see something
before a year passes since we started it ;-)

Good day!


--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA

 

Chris Carlen wrote...

I don't fully agree that "you don't know what you don't know,"
although I think you're well on your way to that respectable
goal. What I do think is that you should (at some point soon)
go back to school for a proper EE, MSEE or PhD EE degree. But
the experience and freedom you have right now in your job may
be best to hold and treasure, rather than rocking the boat or
jumping ship just now. Certainly you should ask for a raise,
but feel your way along, and learn the constraints your boss
is under, etc., in making your decisions. I'm sure that they
appreciate the special skills and capabilities you are showing.

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

I also don't have a EE or even E-tech. background as I have a BS in

And you were damned happy about it.

There isn't one. The dividing line is mostly in professional
responsibility and professional resources. An engineer will catch flak
if work you are doing doesn't end up being relevant or conceptually
adequate to the total project's goals. These goals have been set by
his peers and his boss.

Your flexibility is obviously a requirement if tasks are diverse and
manpower is scarce.

As you gain experience, more responsibility in resource management of
projects will undoubtedly come your way. Until you actually apply for
and are accepted into a position assigned these duties, you will have
to go along with the decisions being made (as to your being used as a
flexible resource).

Your being hired with a BS (not a BSc?), to do a technologists work,
was a decision made with the understanding that your qualifications
suited you to future advancement, not because they knew you'd be a
crack technologist.

Mind you, it could also have been because they didn't know what they
were doing. What would you prefer others to think?

An engineer's professional resources include his peer group - others
with qualifications that he is ethically obliged to consult before
making abnormally tough decisions or doing such reprehensible things
as 'going public'.

A technologist's resources are pretty thin on the ground. You can
consider using s.e.d. as a technical resource, without exposing your
organization to potential ridicule (or compromising information of a
proprietary nature) best, by sticking to the specific small problems
at hand.

A technologist has to have this kind of 'tunnel vision' to get
exacting tasks done competently and on time. Your wider vision, as a
potential engineer, is required for your own actual 'design' work, and
to anticipate future problems, outside of the immediate task at hand.

It may be difficult sometimes to remember just what kind of vision is
appropriate to the task. Choosing the right one is the first step in
gaining the confidence of your supervisors.

RL

 

Hi Chris.

I only know a little about your work, but from what I had read I
always regarded you as an engineer. IIRC you covered some demanding
ground with... I can hardly remember, but was it PLL motor control?
Cetrainly not tech stuff anyhow.

Building nixie clocks, even that would stretch the techs I've worked
with to the limit, tho its play for engineers.

In my mind, skill is what someone can do, not what a piece of paper
says 'we think you can probably do'. To put it another way, a paper
qual is a good thing, sure, but it doesn't genuinely make one an
engineer. Skill does, and that is shown by achievement. It is not
shown by passing exams. This is why companies want people with
experience, not fresh grads.

I doubt I remember any of the maths I did at degree level, yet OTOH I
have plenty of knowledge not covered by degree courses, knowledge that
is infinitely more useful than that math.

I have met many newly paper qualified tron engs who didnt have any
idea how to build a simple radio, nor an audio amp, nor numerous basic
building block things. I couldnt call those people real engineers
myself. Although they got degrees, I dont think they understood it too
well, because they didnt show good ability to apply their knowledge to
real world problems. And that kind of knowledge is soon forgotten. To
really understand and remember something one has to come at it from
all sides, and play about with it. And our degree courses here in UK
fail to do either of those. In fact I think there are also other
aspects in which uni courses are quite in need of reform.

There will always be holes in one's knowledge because there is far too
much knowledge for one person to cover. Its the nature of this area of
life. I see that in lots of s.e.d. threads, where it is knowledgeable
engineers discussing, each with their own input to the situation. With
forums like sed these holes diminish, as we can learn here and
contribute to each other's projects.

If you've proven your capabililty, it is pointless to then get a
degree, except that it demonstrates your ability to those who dont
understand the nature of qualifications. Far more practical is to
spend the time learning more of your subject, rather than going over
old ground yet again.


I would finally add that an engineer does need to understand safety,
reliability and legal responsibility, and take these factors into
account in designs. Thats one hole of mine that was covered when I did
my paper quals.


Regards, NT

 

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 09:45:10 -0800, Chris Carlen

(snipped)

A pocket full of degrees don't make you an engineer. Recognition does.
Find the local organization and write them, a local university could help.
Write up your independent projects for review. I bet they'd be happy
to have you.

 

Chris,
You have just described pretty much what any technologist working at the upper
levels of the "technician series" does at a National Lab. I would venture a
guess that you just went through the annual performance appraisal/raise process
and were told your salary level compared to a market analysis of salaries of
people doing similar jobs in Universities and industry. I've been working for
"another" National Lab for a long time and I'll share a secret with you about
"similar jobs" in industry-if there are any, there are only about 5 of them.
Also take into account the atmosphere in which you work. This is basically a
research support job, quite a bit different than engineering in a company that
expects to make a profit. Research spends money, it doesn't make any. A totally
different concept than trying to make a gadget that will make a profit for the
company. You, on the other hand, only have to provide a working gadget that
does what is required so that a researcher can gather the data he/she needs to
satisfy the requirements of their research. What this requires of you is
gathering the required level of knowledge to build the gadget and then move on
to the next project. There's _never_ enough time to develop expert knowledge on
any given subject. Learn what you need and then tackle the next task. If you're
lucky, you might end up working on projects that require further research on
your part into more aspects of a subject you learned something about before but
you'll likely never learn enough about a subject to become an expert. If
something interests you enough, pursue it on your own time. Thats both the
challenge and the curse of the job You do have to admit though, that it's
challenging and fun and I would even guess, well paying. Besides, you get to
play with things most technical types would never even dream of. Don't concern
yourself with engineering behavior vs. technician behavior. Your job is a
completely different animal. Also consider what real benefits would come from a
BSEE or MSEE degree. Pay probably wouldn't change a great deal, you'd certainly
feel a sense of personal accomplishment but on the other hand you would't get
to do what you do either. For me the fun/challenge won out and I'm very content
with my desision.

Regards,
Jim

 

I think what I meant is that if I am doing something like, making a
photodiode amp, I know that I haven't dealt with properly with noise
theory, so I can't properly design for noise performance. But I know
that, so "I know what I don't know." That means I can make an
intelligent decision about whether my capablility will provide adequate
performance without careful noise design, or if I need to call in a real
engineer who knows this, or if I want to make now the time to sit down
and really learn this topic myself.

The point is that there are many techs. who don't even know noise theory
exists, and so they are basically clueless if a design doesn't give good
performance. Without realizing they don't know about even the existence
of theoretical fundamentals that bear upon the problem, they will start
applying scantily reasoned solutions to the problem, like sticking
ferrite beads on cables, and following the local folklore on how to fix
these things. It may or may not work (probably not).

A lot of time can be killed by this sort of thing, and is partly a
result of the fact that management may not understand the difference
between engineers and techs., even though the managers themselves are
engineers. But at least where I work, they are almost all engineers of
a totally different field, and it can be rather perplexing how unable
they are to extrapolate what they must know from their field, to others.

For example, they wouldn't even consider assigning a tech to design a
new balancing box to put under a single piston engine to cancel the
vibrations caused when running a single piston reciprocator. They would
know immediately that the tech. lacks the mechnical theory to do this.
But they know that a mechanical engineer (hopefully) could do this, and
that the tech. could take the resulting drawings and perform the
machining and assembly.

But this breaks down when dealing with another field like EE, where they
go right ahead and ask a tech. to make a photodiode amp. for a very
difficult high gain wide bandwidth data collection experiment. The
potential problem here is often sidesteped by the fact that most techs.
don't even attempt to "design" anything, but rather just do what I call
"piecing modules together." By purchasing commercially available
modules of functionality for the hard parts, they create fine solutions
to problems without having to know how to engineer the modules
themselves. This is a perfectly legitimate aproach to the kind of
problems we face in research, where cost isn't so much an issue as is
getting a working result quickly so the real work of science can be done.

In that light, it is perhaps myself that is the problem, since I am so
eager to learn how to make my own PID controller, photodiode amp, etc.,
that I shy away from buying one and may attempt to convince the
higher-ups that one should be made instead so I can have a good
challenge, with the sales pitch being that I can give them some uniquely
tailored features not possible with a module, that will make them
happier in the long run. This is sometimes a valid point, and that is
where I have made my place here. So it's not just a sales pitch, in
that I won't seriously argue such a thing unless I really believe an
in-house design will be better for our scientific goals. Of course,
there are also plenty of cases for which one simply cannot buy any
modules with the desired functionality.

Regarding school, I would really like to continue not for a title
change, but because I really like to get into the mathematics, and
because what is limiting me right now is not benchtop practical wits but
theory. There is no amount of experience that is going to teach me
feedback loop stabilization. This is a theoretical subject that must be
learned and exercised at the textbook level in order to make it really
flow at design time. I am getting it piecemeal in this case, each time
I have to do one I learn a little more theory. But I prefer to go at a
subject rigorously and completely once and for all, including plenty of
lab exercises that I am fully capable of concocting for myself in order
to fully visualize the mathematical concepts and answering the nagging
questions.

I took the EM course, and delved into it very thoroughly, far more than
what was required. I am also forgeting the mathematical details of it
just as quickly. I am afraid that there comes a time when it becomes
increasingly difficult to make new learning "stick" in the mind, and
that even though you might get it completely when you are learning it,
it just seems to slip out of the memory much more quickly than when at a
younger age. Nonetheless, that course was extremely valuable,
especially since it was focussed on transmission lines. And if I ever
need to deal with it mathematically again, it won't be too hard to get
back to where I was with it.

But I spent about 20 hours a week studying for that darned course, and
it really burned me out. I said "no more" but my desire to learn has me
second guessing that decision again, and I think I might try to tackle a
real disrete semiconductor design course next fall. We'll see. But I
think my limit in terms of available energy is just one course per
semester (maybe only one per year), and it is very difficult to do a
degree that way.

I don't really need a degree, but I do need some specific courses,
either learned on my own or from a formal institution. Those are:

1. discrete semiconductor design (amplifiers, noise, and the roots of
feedback loop stabilization, root-locus, etc.)
2. control theory (including non-linear theory)
3. digital signal processing (need to understand how discrete
sampling influences the loop transfer, and all sorts of other DSP fun)
4. digital logic design including HDL
5. perhaps some more advanced filters or network synthesis theory


Finally, yes I have a freedom in this job that is more valuable than any
improvements in title. And I have been given consistently respectable
raises. So I have no complaints.

As always, thanks for the reply.

Good day!



--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA

 

Hi Chris,
I second what Win says.

I was an electronic hobbyist as a kid, but got my degree in Psychology
(its a long story involving an aborted attempt to enter the minstry...
When I got my bachelors, the best job I could find was working at
GTE in a telco office as a tech. There, you found a wide range of
abilities, from cookbook techs that could do anything, as long as they
had done it 50 time before, to guys who were busy bulding thier own
satellite receivers, tesla coils, etc. I was somewhere in the middle...

After 7 years, when I was going to be laid off due to low seniority, I
took a package and went back to school. Seems that, even though what I
had been doing for the last few years was low end engineering, I didn't
have the ticket that said I are one! So I spent a year at UNM Al-B-Q
boning up on Calculus, diffeq and a physics class, then I went and got
my MASTERS at UC Santa Barbara. Since you have a bachelors already, go
straight to the masters. Its easier, by a long shot, especially since
you already have a lot of the basics down. The fun part is trying to
keep up with the math!

Again, my standard advice: If you have a choice between an undergrad
course and a grad course in the same subjet, TAKE THE GRAD COURSE! It
is usually easier and a lot more practical. They skip the boring part
of the basics, and go straight into 'how do you do that...'!

Charlie
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems

 

I read in sci.electronics.design that Chris Carlen

This is a very difficult subject. I have met many techs who were
extremely competent designers and 'engineers' who were very limited in
key skills. Of course, managers SHOULD know their people and their
competences, but these days they hardly have time to get to know them
before they are fired.