General electronics is all much of a muchness

What's transpired here? One can say all they want, but when it comes time to work can they keep busy?

Lightium said:

What's transpired here? One can say all they want, but when it comes time to work can they keep busy?

Click to expand...

Seems like a whole lot of blame shifting and "what-aboutism".

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."​

-- Macbeth

Do you think we shoudl get a letter together for the industiral bodies.

You certainly have a good deal of cheek composing such a letter and imagining in your fever dreams that anybody except yourself will send it.

There is at least one logic fault here. You say there's nothing new under the sun, and any circuit you could possibly want can already be found on the web. (A premise I don't happen to agree with).

Then you go on to say a company will benefit from having more engineers pass through it, because each adds some personal touch to a product, some secret sauce if you will. Therefore, after having a number of engineers contribute to a project, it will be superior to a "standard" design found on the web or elsewhere. So in some way, it must be better than similar things, and so, valuable to a competitor.


I also disagree with your idea that companies are reluctant to hire the engineers they need because they might steal ideas when they leave and take them to a competitor. Sorry, not buying that argument.

If you are going to send your screed to politicians, may I make a few suggestions, so you might be taken slightly more seriously?

"Electronics Companies" and the like shouldn't be capitalized — they are not proper nouns.

"Engineers" and "Electronic Engineers"..... same as above.

Plurals of words ending in y – change the y to i and add es. Example: the plural of company is companies. "Company's" is possessive – A company's assets for example.

"It's" is the contraction of "it is".

"Its" is the possessive. The dog ate its dinner.

For The Popcorn said:

I also disagree with your idea that companies are reluctant to hire the engineers they need because they might steal ideas when they leave and take them to a competitor. Sorry, not buying that argument.

Click to expand...

I would suggest his main issue is trying to make excuses for himself repeatedly getting fired (hence the 40 jobs) - but can't seem to understand that it's probably down to his incompetence, asking basic questions (such as how to read datasheets) on a public forum isn't really the actions of a competent engineer.

I'm still staggered he was able to keep getting hired, I certainly wouldn't look at anyone with such a poor employment record - 40 jobs in a short time os a huge red flag.

40 jobs in a short time is a huge red flag.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but in one supposedly 3 month contract, the "job" was to fix a 300W Buck (400v to 100vout).....i completed this in 1 week....it just had a few cct faults....i had it working on the bench, wrote a report to the cust about what had been wrong with it....and that was it....job done and finished...cust was very happy............so its easy to have multiple jobs like this, when you can complete it in one week.......

Tl;dr.

My advice, shorten it up. Significantly.
If you want any busy ministers to read it.

Flyback said:

...thanks, so why , in your opinion, are co's worried about their EEs leaving

Click to expand...

You claim this to be true, but don't provide evidence that it's widespread.

An obvious reason a company would want to retain their engineers is because of their knowledge about the company's products. They understand the design, know the quirks of getting them built, how to correct issues with the products, etc. Knowledge which perhaps should be documented but actually lives in one guy's head.

If someone new takes over, it takes time and costs money for them to figure out this knowledge again.

*shrug* I think this is a far more plausible explanation.


You might do well to express your "40 jobs" differently. "40 jobs" sounds like 39 times fired, as Nigel said. In the US, we might say something like "worked on contacts for 40 different employers"..... which may raise different white flags.

Knowledge which perhaps should be documented but actually lives in one guy's head.

Click to expand...

...Well said....just document it....much of it is very basic assembly issues......not something only an electronics engineer would be needed to know it.

Truly, you are a legend in your own mind.
It is true that I've never experienced a handoff that was worth even a brass farthing.

Flyback said:

In any job, i never needed any handover from the outgoing EE........in fact, i ususally find mistakes in there work and correct them.....i always check their work anyway, and wouldnt believe theyd done everything right anyway. In fact, since UK outsourced its electronics to China, a lot of UK EE's are rubbish anyway....the industry just isnt there for EEs to come into any more

Click to expand...

Arrogant rubbish. You believe you know everything, yet you're always here complaining datasheets don't tell you enough information, are just wrong or are intentionally hiding information. Every design under the sun is already well-known, but arguing you have the secrets nobody else knows. If you have never needed or wanted a turnover from your predecessor, you're incredibly arrogant or wasting time by not learning what they know.

Sorry to be harsh, but all your posts here paint a pretty clear picture.

Arrogant rubbish

Click to expand...

Thanks, its just being honest and declaring that there's nothing special about what i do....

You seem to be under the impression that, just because a company is using a common, of the shelf circuit, that they shouldn't try to keep it a secret.

But often, it's not the circuit that they're trying to keep secret. It's that they're keeping secret what circuit they chose to use for an application.

By your argument, software companies shouldn't consider their source code secret. The source code for any given application is, for the most part, just a collection of function calls. All of which are listed in the compiler manual of whatever language they're using.

Another case is the password to your bank, or any other, account. It's just a string of common numbers, characters, and symbols, all of which can be found on the keyboard in front of you. So why keep it a secret?

But often, it's not the circuit that they're trying to keep secret. It's that they're keeping secret what circuit they chose to use for an application.

Click to expand...

...thanks, and its pointless to keep it secret....because if an Elec engineer knows the spec and the application, then they can very easily figure out which circuit would be needed. It would be pointless copying, and neither i nor anyone else would need to copy.......in fact , i deffo would not copy, because the copied cct may not be optimised.

Is anybody else getting dizzy trying to follow this "logic."?

I know Electronics company owners who feel dizzy when they see a simple Linear Regulator schematic.....and insist that its rocket science, and must be locked away out of the view of engineers who may leave and take it elsewhere.
Needless to say, their companys are dying off...and they must be rescued......by taking the advice above.

Each company has its own overall personality. People that work at a factory should worry about their own job and the board of directors worry about money and getting patents on things they don't won't stolen. Be good at what you do and let everyone else do their own job.

I use to have a travel service job I was in a different factory every day for several years, that was the most educational job I ever had. I got to see what anyone factory was making and how they were doing it. No cameras allowed especially military factories but they could not stop me from remembering every thing I see. I took all that knowledge to my Design Engineer job.

Flyback said:

I know Electronics company owners who feel dizzy when they see a simple Linear Regulator schematic.....and insist that its rocket science, and must be locked away out of the view of engineers who may leave and take it elsewhere.
Needless to say, their companys are dying off...and they must be rescued......by taking the advice above.

Click to expand...

This is wrong. Economics requires that companies that cannot innovate and diversify must inevitably fade away. What is the point of keeping a collection of weak sisters afloat dragging everybody else down. Glad you're not a minister.

This is wrong. Economics requires that companies that cannot innovate and diversify must inevitably fade away. What is the point of keeping a collection of weak sisters afloat dragging everybody else down. Glad you're not a minister

Click to expand...

Thanks, im mulling through what you said, and struggling to appreciate your context?....it actually sounds like you want better and more progressive companies out there....so i am thinking you agree with me.?