Re: Looking for PCB layout designer

From: keith (krw_at_att.bizzzz)
Date: 03/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:33:00 -0500

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:37:54 -0700, Fritz Schlunder wrote:

>
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.03.27.05.17.43.642033@att.bizzzz...
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:48:50 -0700, Fritz Schlunder wrote:
>> > I would venture to say anyone who takes 10+ years to learn how to do
>> > something as simple as layout for digital boards isn't very smart or
>> > adaptable. Additionally BGA parts and 10+ layer boards weren't all that
>> > common 10+ years ago. Even today BGA parts and 10+ layer designs are
>> > avoided as much as possible due to cost constraints.
>>
>>
>> Oh, bull***! I was doing 8-layer cards (and 12 layer boards) 30 years
>> ago. Cost is a matter for the business types. BGA wasn't a biggie 10
>> years ago either. Ten-layer boards are trivial (and not all that
>> pricey) today. Perhaps you're in over your head.
>
>
> Whoa there tiger. No need to get fiesty. I was making generalizations and
> with all generalizations there are exceptions. I never said ten layer
> boards were difficult or impossible. Generally speaking the more layers you
> have the easier it is to route everything. In many ways a single layer
> board is much more difficult to route properly than a ten layer board.

It's rather hard to compare single-layer boards with ten-layer complexity.
Sure, if you have the same functino to perform a single layer will be a
tad tougher. One doesn't add layers if they're not needed. I was
objecting to your stating that 10+ layer boards and BGAs weren't all that
common ten years ago. They were.

> In many ways I consider computer motherboards to represent the most
> complicated electronic consumer product (PCB wise) which is made in
> large volume. Motherboard manufactureres have been using four layer (as
> I understand it usually six layer now) boards for ages. That isn't to
> say 10+ layer boards aren't in common use.

Consumer products aren't the end-all in technology. They pushed more by
cost than technology.
 
>> > You and pretty much all other employers need to stop making ads that
>> > require fantastic amounts of experience for relatively easy tasks. As
>> > a would be employee it is very frustrating to be ignored as a
>> > possible candidate simply due to lack of documented experience, even
>> > though you are certain you are more than qualified and capable of
>> > fulfilling the job.
>>
>> Perhaps you've never had a difficult task? ...you think it's all easy?
>
>
> All tasks are difficult at first, but with a little work they become
> much ea sier. I consider a smart person to be someone who doesn't take
> very long (compared to most other people) to become proficient at some
> given task. On the other hand by my definition a stoopid person is
> someone who takes a long time to achieve a reasonable level of
> competance at some task, and in the long run may never reach the level
> of compentance in that field as most other people. Of course, people
> are complicated creatures, a person can be smart in some areas and
> complete morons in others.
>
>
>> > It obviously doesn't help the employer either by passing up perfectly
>> > good potential employees. In fact, this experience requirement
>> > specifically excludes superstar genius people from your potential
>> > selection pool.
>>
>> ...like you, who think a 10-layer board is impossible? Trust me it's
>> not.
>
>
> I never claimed any such thing. Designing and then routing a fully
> functional ten layer board is well within my capability.

I see. It's only impossible for others. For you...

> And yes I am an exceptionally bright individual (in some ways, although
> admittedly not all). After completeing public school through eighth
> grade I started college at age 13. I then graduated with an associates
> of business degree at age 15 with a 3.86 GPA. During that time I did
> peer tutoring and tutored many of my peers in subject such as
> mathematics. Many of my tutees had many more years of "experience"
> learning mathematical concepts than me (having had to go through high
> school, etc.), yet I had in much less time managed to master all of the
> mathematics that my particular college taught.

Wow! Is your arm sore?

>> > Someone who is exceptionally bright would typically require much less
>> > time to reach an equal or superior level of proficiency at some task
>> > than most other people. As a consequence these exceptionally bright
>> > people will not likely meet the XX years experience requirement, but
>> > are otherwise particularly desirable as employees.
>>
>>
>> What an idiotic statement. Experience means nothing?
>
>
> I never claimed any such thing. I contend experience is very valuable,
> however, I believe X years of experience isn't as good a metric of
> competance as directly measuring or observing ability.

One minutes observation isn't much to go on either. I'll take relevant
experience anytime.

> Not that long ago I read an employment ad that was looking for a
> groundskeeper. The primary responsibility was to pick up trash and mow
> the grass. They wanted 1+ year of experience. I don't know about some
> people, but I don't need one whole year to learn how to mow grass and
> pick up garbage.

You miss the point. If they have one year experience, they'll be more
likely to hang around past the first check. The candidate *may* be more
reliable than one still wet behind the ears. 

-- 
  Keith
Quantcast