05-08-2015, 04:01 PM
(04-08-2015, 06:10 PM)Mark Hennessy Wrote: I'd make a similar point. Does a good repairer need to be a good electronics engineer?
The two don't necessarily go together. Some of the best repair engineers I've met were quite weak at electronics, and never did their own projects, and weren't really interested in the theory beyond the very basics. But they did have good memories, which helped when dealing with stock faults. And they had a good "nose" for a fault - both literally and metaphorically...
By contrast, some of the best design engineers I know can't fix the most basic of faults. They might have an extremely deep knowledge of their field, but the concept that real components can go wrong is alien to them. Some of these engineers produce very clever but unreliable products because they don't appreciate the failure modes that repair engineers see every day.
Of course, the best engineers are a blend of the two extremes. Good with theory, but good with electronics at an intuitive level. It's possible to teach the former; the latter is much harder, and requires a lot of painful experience.
So to anyone hoping to get better at fault-finding electronics - new or old - I'd say this: studying electronics is never a waste of time. Trying to build your own projects is extremely valuable experience - especially if they don't work at first and you have to do some fault-finding. If you restrict yourself to elementary fault-finding (looking for burnt components, changing components "on-spec" because they have a reputation, asking people which components should be changed), then this is not intellectually satisfying, and you will very quickly get bored. What keeps a life-long interest in this hobby is the "chase", the logical process of elimination and deduction, the thrill of a successful "conviction".
That's personal, of course. Some people find satisfaction in the other aspects of restoration, such as the cosmetics...
Yes, all good points you make. Not too long ago I was getting curious about the difference between theory and practical engineering. I was especially curious over Einstein as I knew he basically failed his basic electrical engineering exam. On paper, Einstein was a system reject - someone who was considered unsuitable to be a professional engineer. What happened after was Einstein got a normal job as an office clerk but continued with his interest in physics and electrical science in his spare time. In personal interviews he stated he's never really wanted to be a repairman but viewed himself as "theoretical". The question I was asking myself was, how far did Einstein get so far as practical engineering is concerned? Did he mostly just do physics and maths and write papers?
Let's not forget the Wright Brothers too. These were bike mechanics who were determined to get a machine up into the air and fly.
Anyway, I think there's a big difference between the practical engineer and the academic theorist. The engineer needs a reasonable understanding of theory but also good diagnostic and design skills as well as manual skills and dexterity. The theorist will spend a lot more time doing maths and physics and maybe working things out academically.
My advice to anyone would be to try and acquire engineering skills first and more advanced theory later. I say that because after reading a few electronics books around level one and close to intermediate, I was totally clueless when I opened up my first actual radio.
I'm not sure how many people would be strong in physics and maths as well as being good at repairs at the same time. I suppose there must be extremes at both ends and a mix of the two.
