←back to thread

157 points tdhttt | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pclmulqdq ◴[] No.45125831[source]
EE encompasses a lot of "engineering that takes hard math" at a professional and research level (similar to "hard CS," just different fields of math), so it is very hard to do as an undergrad, when your background in complex analysis and E&M is weak.

Early classes on circuits in EE will usually take shortcuts using known circuit structures and simplified models. The abstraction underneath the field of analog circuits is extremely leaky, so you often learn to ignore it unless you absolutely need to pay attention.

Hobbyist and undergrad projects thus usually consist of cargo culting combinations of simple circuit building blocks connected to a microcontroller of some kind. A lot of research (not in EE) needs this kind of work, but it's not necessarily glamorous. This is the same as pulling software libraries off the shelf to do software work ("showing my advisor docker"), but the software work gets more credit in modern academia because the skills are rarer and the building blocks are newer.

Plenty of cutting-edge science needs hobbyist-level EE, it's just not work in EE. Actual CS research is largely the same as EE research: very, very heavy on math and very difficult to do without studying a lot. If you compare hard EE research to basic software engineering, it makes sense that you think there's a "wall," but you're ignoring the easy EE and the hard CS.

replies(7): >>45126229 #>>45126357 #>>45126514 #>>45127402 #>>45127675 #>>45128168 #>>45128950 #
carlmr ◴[] No.45126357[source]
>Early classes on circuits in EE will usually take shortcuts using known circuit structures and simplified models.

Might just be me, but I found it all clicked when we started learning the fundamentals underneath these abstractions. For me it was harder in the first classes because it's about memorizing poorly understood concepts, my brain prefers logically deriving complex concepts as a learning method.

replies(2): >>45126439 #>>45126604 #
stephen_g ◴[] No.45126439[source]
Yeah, this kind of idea is why I’m dead against using things like the hydraulic analogy in early EE for anyone who is ever going to want to do more than the ‘hook some things up to an Arduino’ (or probably ESP32 these days) kind of level electronics.

The gaps between the analogy and the real world actually make it harder to understand the fundamentals and just confuse people when you get to a deeper level understanding. It requires more unlearning than is worth it for the slight benefit of making the concepts slightly more intuitive to understand at the beginning.

replies(5): >>45126493 #>>45126508 #>>45127440 #>>45128957 #>>45133630 #
1. junon ◴[] No.45126493[source]
Once I ditched the hydraulic analogy and really tried to internalize charge, current, voltage, etc. is when I finally started to understand why the hydraulic analogy "works" but only for people who already understand electricity.

Electricity behaves in many ways just like water (just at a significantly faster time scale) but I don't think it actually helped me learn how it all worked to start with.

replies(2): >>45127233 #>>45132815 #
2. r_lee ◴[] No.45127233[source]
This is a common problem in all fields IMO. It's easy for many to fall into the "It's like X" but it only makes sense if you already have the information needed in your head to connect the dots

Which is why I also don't generally like analogies and the kind

3. foobarchu ◴[] No.45132815[source]
This reminds me a lot of the car analogy that gets used to (poorly) teach object oriented programming.