04-08-2015, 06:10 PM
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...
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...
