The thread is not diverging, because the things being discussed are totally connected.


I will tell a story of me:


When I was about six or seven, I was interested in anything electrical. My parents gave me a number of "Ladybird" books which were then half a crown each. Of particular interest was "Magnets, bulbs and batteries", which illustrated a number of things one could do with these items with the intention of asking the question Why? A bit later I was given old radio and TV sets to dismantle, which whilst interesting was rather confusing, particularly the large electrolytic capacitors which connected firmly to the chassis. At the next Christmas, I was given a book by Ray Bradbury, subject building a radio receiver in stages with up to four battery valves. Obviously I was hooked, and all the rest followed on, from valve amplifiers through Amateur Radio to a career in electronics covering 40 years, interspaced with some heavy electrical stuff to add a little spice to life.


The knowledge I gained at school whilst studying for the Radio Amateurs Exam (Then a 3-hour essay type paper with calculations thrown in) and subsequently at university was greatly boosted by continuously making electronic items, and mending broken ones as they were found. It is very unfortunate that electronics has become so sophisticated and tiny because making anything with useful functionality now needs at least one computer and chips and other components really cannot be assembled without a sophisticated PCB. Even my interest in Amateur Television has been dulled because a digital transmitter is miles away from a sensible home project, although is available designed by a superb team for the  BATC and is available fully assembled and tested. One can make power amplifiers and converters for various bands as more powerful items are still of a size one can see!


Many items are made so that they cannot be mended, just complete subassemblies changed. It is disappointing to an extreme degree to have a failure of some piece of kit that is immediately beyond any reasonable repair. Modern youth will never learn because many things are virtually impossible. Somehow we need to encourage the "hands-on approach" to get anyone interested in science or engineering. Schools no longer carry out many experiments in Chemistry because the "H&S says it is too dangerous". In fact almost everything is too dangerous today, schools no longer have machine tools that pupils can use, sharp chisels are banned as being weapons etc. Just how are these youngsters expected to learn anything? Put simply learning is by doing, no wonder the only girls even slightly interested only want to be computer programmers, and there are few of those.


A few years back I taught farmers sons tractor mechanics in an Agricultural College. Even they, whose livelihoods depended on their machines, were really interested in fixing them. As to why or how they actually worked, well that was much less interesting than testing a tractor on a dynamometer or driving far too fast around the yard.


This is why I write about the University course graduates. They have missed a huge chunk of education, to the detriment of everything. Technical training is now at a very low ebb, not helped by the IET pushing women into Engineering for which they are likely to be very ill-equipped. What is needed is root and branch improvement of the training process, from primary school to University.

The thread is not diverging, because the things being discussed are totally connected.


I will tell a story of me:


When I was about six or seven, I was interested in anything electrical. My parents gave me a number of "Ladybird" books which were then half a crown each. Of particular interest was "Magnets, bulbs and batteries", which illustrated a number of things one could do with these items with the intention of asking the question Why? A bit later I was given old radio and TV sets to dismantle, which whilst interesting was rather confusing, particularly the large electrolytic capacitors which connected firmly to the chassis. At the next Christmas, I was given a book by Ray Bradbury, subject building a radio receiver in stages with up to four battery valves. Obviously I was hooked, and all the rest followed on, from valve amplifiers through Amateur Radio to a career in electronics covering 40 years, interspaced with some heavy electrical stuff to add a little spice to life.


The knowledge I gained at school whilst studying for the Radio Amateurs Exam (Then a 3-hour essay type paper with calculations thrown in) and subsequently at university was greatly boosted by continuously making electronic items, and mending broken ones as they were found. It is very unfortunate that electronics has become so sophisticated and tiny because making anything with useful functionality now needs at least one computer and chips and other components really cannot be assembled without a sophisticated PCB. Even my interest in Amateur Television has been dulled because a digital transmitter is miles away from a sensible home project, although is available designed by a superb team for the  BATC and is available fully assembled and tested. One can make power amplifiers and converters for various bands as more powerful items are still of a size one can see!


Many items are made so that they cannot be mended, just complete subassemblies changed. It is disappointing to an extreme degree to have a failure of some piece of kit that is immediately beyond any reasonable repair. Modern youth will never learn because many things are virtually impossible. Somehow we need to encourage the "hands-on approach" to get anyone interested in science or engineering. Schools no longer carry out many experiments in Chemistry because the "H&S says it is too dangerous". In fact almost everything is too dangerous today, schools no longer have machine tools that pupils can use, sharp chisels are banned as being weapons etc. Just how are these youngsters expected to learn anything? Put simply learning is by doing, no wonder the only girls even slightly interested only want to be computer programmers, and there are few of those.


A few years back I taught farmers sons tractor mechanics in an Agricultural College. Even they, whose livelihoods depended on their machines, were really interested in fixing them. As to why or how they actually worked, well that was much less interesting than testing a tractor on a dynamometer or driving far too fast around the yard.


This is why I write about the University course graduates. They have missed a huge chunk of education, to the detriment of everything. Technical training is now at a very low ebb, not helped by the IET pushing women into Engineering for which they are likely to be very ill-equipped. What is needed is root and branch improvement of the training process, from primary school to University.