From: Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gabriel Sechan wrote:
On a side note- I really don't like how analog is taught entirely.
Digital I grasped pretty much immediately- I understood boolean logic. I
could sit down and design a simple processor today, if I needed to. But
despite being able to find the voltage and current of any LRC circuit by 3
methods, I'm damned if I know how to actually design a circuit that does
anything with those components. If I had been taught how to *use* them to
design useful stuff earlier, I would have been more inclined to try harder
at analog.
Well, that is normally the province of the Electronics I course where you
go through all the various basic amplifiers. However, you are not alone.
When I was at UT-Austin, Doug Holberg taught an analog CMOS VLSI class at
the graduate level. Doug is a great teacher; he, along with Philip Allen,
wrote the first real reference on analog CMOS VLSI design. I just audited
the class because I couldn't officially fit it into my schedule. Most of
the students were graduate level semiconductors students; these are
*really* bright folks.
The first exam crushed most of the class.
Basic small-signal analysis was simply beyond most of the students. I was
appalled. This is Electronics I even at the University of Pittsburgh, my
alma mater.
Electronics I is actually kind of a fun course if you have a lab to go with
it. Creating a real audio amp from a single transistor and a small number
of discrete components is actually cool. You also tend to get good at
nasal debugging.
Yeah- we didn't have one of those. We had an ECE110 that did an intro to
resistors, capacitors, and a lot of digital stuff. Then we had ECE210 that
taught us analog circuit analysis. We did a brief thing on op-amps, but
were never really taught what they were for- just how to analyze their IV
characteristics.
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
