Looking for PCB layout designer

[Slavisa Zigic]

We are looking for experienced PCB layout designer with more than 10 years
of experience with multilayer digital boards( very often more than 10 layers
with BGA parts). This is not permanent position. Several boards will be
designed (routed) each year.
PCB layout designer should be able to produce all files needed for
fabrication (Gerbers, drill, etc.), sometimes design new footprints...
We are located in Washington D.C. metropolitan area.

Contact:

Slavisa Zigic
email: pcblayout@cfrsi.com
tel: 703-385-4493

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

"Slavisa Zigic" <szc@x.net> wrote in message
news:1111682470.717466@irys.nyx.net...

We are looking for experienced PCB layout designer with more than 10 years
of experience with multilayer digital boards( very often more than 10
layers
with BGA parts). This is not permanent position. Several boards will be
designed (routed) each year.
PCB layout designer should be able to produce all files needed for
fabrication (Gerbers, drill, etc.), sometimes design new footprints...
We are located in Washington D.C. metropolitan area.

Greetings.

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.

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. 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. 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. No company can ever expect to achieve the extreme success
attained by companies such as the early days of Apple Computer, Intel,
Microsoft, etc. without exceptionally bright and adaptable employees.

 

[keith]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:48:50 -0700, Fritz Schlunder wrote:

"Slavisa Zigic" <szc@x.net> wrote in message
news:1111682470.717466@irys.nyx.net...
We are looking for experienced PCB layout designer with more than 10 years
of experience with multilayer digital boards( very often more than 10
layers
with BGA parts). This is not permanent position. Several boards will be
designed (routed) each year.
PCB layout designer should be able to produce all files needed for
fabrication (Gerbers, drill, etc.), sometimes design new footprints...
We are located in Washington D.C. metropolitan area.


Greetings.

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, bullshit! 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.

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?

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.

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?

No company can ever expect to achieve the extreme success attained by
companies such as the early days of Apple Computer, Intel, Microsoft,
etc. without exceptionally bright and adaptable employees.

What a dumb statement. Experinece talks.

--
Keith

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.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, bullshit! 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No company can ever expect to achieve the extreme success attained by
companies such as the early days of Apple Computer, Intel, Microsoft,
etc. without exceptionally bright and adaptable employees.

What a dumb statement. Experinece talks.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.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, bullshit! 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

 

[Clarence_A]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.03.27.17.32.57.791930@att.bizzzz...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:37:54 -0700, Fritz Schlunder wrote:
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.03.27.05.17.43.642033@att.bizzzz...
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:48:50 -0700, Fritz Schlunder wrote:

Whoa there tiger. No need to get fiesty.

I was making generalizations and
with all generalizations there are exceptions.

All generalizations are FALSE, including this one!

'GE-600' Computer used 9 layer impedance controlled boards in the
'60s. They were no harder to lay out than any other board and I
have been laying out boards since it was done with pen and ink.

 

[Fritz Schlunder]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.03.27.17.32.57.791930@att.bizzzz...

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

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.

Well that is the problem with words like "common" whose definition wasn't
quantified in this context. So we can both be right on this. My version of
the definition of "common" is evidently different from yours.

That said, in 1995 I was using a 486 DX33 and it didn't have any BGA parts
on it. In 1999 I worked for an electronics manufacturing company with X-ray
equipment needed for working with BGAs. While that was in no way amazing in
1999, not all of the local competitors in the business had the tools needed
for working with BGA parts.

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.

That is often true, but consumer products dominate in terms of volume. In
terms of the total number of PCBs produced in 1995, I'm sure the number
using 10+ layers takes a very small part of the pie.

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...

I never said it was impossible for others either. But regardless this is
way off topic of my main point in my first post. My orignal point was I had
a problem with employers effectively descriminating against smart people.
Descrimination against smart people (as well as responsible people) is
rather epidemic in our society. Most people are totally unaware of this
simply because it doesn't effect them.

Take for instance the minimum driver licensing age. It varies by state in
the US, but is typically somewhere around 16. When I was 13 I was
definitely responsible enough to drive a car, which would have been very
valuable for me for transport to and from college. No bussing system or
mass transit was available in this area. Unfortunately due to societal
descrimination against responsible people I had to ride a bicyle (uphill
both directions in the snow, etc.) to school instead. How fair was that?

Of course, one might argue that even a very responsible 13 year old
shouldn't be allow to drive since if they caused a car wreck (even if a pure
accident and not due to irresponsible behavior) they could not pay for the
damages.

I would counter that argument by saying that the very responsible 13 year
old wouldn't be able to pay for the damages since our society further
descriminates against the responsible and capable 13 year old with child
labor laws that prevent them from working for money.

The point is many aspects of our society are simply too ridged. The rules
are too unbending. There isn't enough room for exceptions. My specific
qualm at the moment is with employers that descriminate against smart people
with their X years experience requirements. Why do I even mention the
problem? Well I want to change it, that is why. The way I see it the first
step towards fixing this problem is to make people aware that it even exists
by pointing it out in a public forum. One of the later steps is to figure
out what method of hiring people would be better and more fair.

The whole process has problems including the resume writing/submittal/review
steps. The resume process gives a great advantage to people who are
dishonest and those who are perfectly comfortable bragging about how great
they are. An honest/modest person who feels uncomfortable bragging about
themself will have a disadvantage. He who lies on their resume the most is
the most likely to be contacted for an interview. This isn't right. This
is bad.

I propose employers should adopt a strategy of creating long
questionaires/quizzes available to any prospective employee. The employer
is free to make up the quiz/questionaire however they see fit, but
presumably would include actual questions relevant to the job requirements.
For example, for a digital design type job one question might be:

You want to implement the function: Output = A + B'C'D'A + (CD + B'). How
would you do this?
(leave space for the would be employee to enter schematics)

If the would be employee can't answer this or produces an ugly quagmire of
over 100 gates, then they could quickly be excluded from a face to face
interview. On the other hand if they produce a very elegant solution using
the least possible gates, then it might be justifiable to do a face to face
interview provided the rest of their answers to the other questions are
reasonable.

Or maybe a question for switch mode power supply designer:

(show full and detailed schematics of a typical SMPS)
The above powersupply has been found to have an unstable control loop.
(provide relevant details such as capacitor ESR, etc.) Modify the
schematics so the power supply is stable.

Or for some other type of electronics job, maybe one question might be like:

(show schematics of some circuit with a few errors in it)
When the circuit shown above was prototyped and tested on the bench the
device didn't work right. What is wrong with the design? Provide a
description of how you might fix it.

You get the idea.

The employer can make the test as long as they want (and should). This will
also be helpful for would be employees that don't know for sure if they are
applying for the right kind of job and if they could handle it or not. This
kind of test would be far more fair than a strict X years experience
requirement.

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?

No, but it seemed relevant that I established some degree of credibility
since you were using words that suggested I was an idiot.

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.

No need for it to be a minute, a pre-interview test could be made
arbitrarily lengthy since the employer doesn't have to pay employee
candidates jack doodly.

Without a doubt experience is a very valuable thing.

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.

I agree in this example such a requirement may have something to do with
employees hanging around with this kind of job. On the other hand
prospective employees for design/engineering jobs such as the OP's are
comparatively stable, but they do need to have some degree of mental
flexibility. Discriminating against the most mentally flexible people
doesn't make much sense for a job that requires mental flexibility.

 

[keith]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:18:14 -0700, Fritz Schlunder wrote:

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.03.27.17.32.57.791930@att.bizzzz...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:37:54 -0700, Fritz Schlunder wrote:

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.


Well that is the problem with words like "common" whose definition wasn't
quantified in this context. So we can both be right on this. My version of
the definition of "common" is evidently different from yours.

Common <> consumer products. Even there, the Japaneese were using BGAs
extensively *ten* years ago. Hell man, it's 2005! BGAs weren't uncommon
in '90. Sure, people were scared of 'em, but change is good for the soul.

That said, in 1995 I was using a 486 DX33 and it didn't have any BGA
parts on it. In 1999 I worked for an electronics manufacturing company
with X-ray equipment needed for working with BGAs. While that was in no
way amazing in 1999, not all of the local competitors in the business
had the tools needed for working with BGA parts.

Consumer PC crap. Cost is king in this market, not reliability,
performance, size, or any other metric. Cost is only second to *COST*.
Sure multi-layer boards are more expensice (the board manufacturers yelped
at a $5 adder to go to six layer), but that does *not* mean that they
weren't common. Mainframes have been using boards with more layers than
I've got fingers and toes (full compliment, BTW) for 25 years, or more.

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.


That is often true, but consumer products dominate in terms of volume.
In terms of the total number of PCBs produced in 1995, I'm sure the
number using 10+ layers takes a very small part of the pie.

It is not "often" true. It *IS* true. The quantity of boards produced
isn't much of a metric either. The *fact* is that 10 layer is simple to
design and manufacture. the house I last worked with didn't have any
problem with controlled impedances (50 inner 75 outer) on a 10-layer .062"
board. All I had to do is specify the impedances and stack and they came
back with all the other importan parameters (like trace widths, fishing
lands out of BGA messes, etc.). This stuff is *WELL* known.

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...


I never said it was impossible for others either. But regardless this
is way off topic of my main point in my first post. My orignal point
was I had a problem with employers effectively descriminating against
smart people. Descrimination against smart people (as well as
responsible people) is rather epidemic in our society. Most people are
totally unaware of this simply because it doesn't effect them.

If you think they want a shingle, sure. That's what the lawyers want to
see. ...can't discriminate. The *fact* is that revelant experience
talks. Pretty paper with a seal on it gets the foot in the door.
Intelligence isn't quantifiable, but education and experience is.

Take for instance the minimum driver licensing age. It varies by state
in the US, but is typically somewhere around 16. When I was 13 I was
definitely responsible enough to drive a car, which would have been very
valuable for me for transport to and from college. No bussing system or
mass transit was available in this area. Unfortunately due to societal
descrimination against responsible people I had to ride a bicyle (uphill
both directions in the snow, etc.) to school instead. How fair was
that?

That sore arm is comming back!

There is *NO* way I want to be on the same road as a 13YO. I'm not too
happy with unconditional licenses at 16, these days. Because you feel
you were discriminated against, because you sere SOOooo smart, you have my
pity.

Of course, one might argue that even a very responsible 13 year old
shouldn't be allow to drive since if they caused a car wreck (even if a
pure accident and not due to irresponsible behavior) they could not pay
for the damages.

Neither can a 16YO. But I'm not in charge.

I would counter that argument by saying that the very responsible 13
year old wouldn't be able to pay for the damages since our society
further descriminates against the responsible and capable 13 year old
with child labor laws that prevent them from working for money.

What do you think about a drunk being able to drive better at a .25%BAC
better than a 90YO granny stone-cold sober? Should the drunk be able to
drive, drunk?

The point is many aspects of our society are simply too ridged. The
rules are too unbending. There isn't enough room for exceptions. My
specific qualm at the moment is with employers that descriminate against
smart people with their X years experience requirements. Why do I even
mention the problem? Well I want to change it, that is why. The way I
see it the first step towards fixing this problem is to make people
aware that it even exists by pointing it out in a public forum. One of
the later steps is to figure out what method of hiring people would be
better and more fair.

....better go to Holland. I hear they have some grand windmills there.

Just *why* do you believe that experince isn't important? You whine
about it a lot, but I don't see *you* hiring the gifted and otherwise
unproven. If you have a better way, you should be able to kick ass in the
market.

The whole process has problems including the resume
writing/submittal/review steps. The resume process gives a great
advantage to people who are dishonest and those who are perfectly
comfortable bragging about how great they are. An honest/modest person
who feels uncomfortable bragging about themself will have a
disadvantage. He who lies on their resume the most is the most likely
to be contacted for an interview. This isn't right. This is bad.

A resume == job? Fraud == goodness? My we are on a roll, eh?

I propose employers should adopt a strategy of creating long
questionaires/quizzes available to any prospective employee. The
employer is free to make up the quiz/questionaire however they see fit,
but presumably would include actual questions relevant to the job
requirements. For example, for a digital design type job one question
might be:

No can do. See: "discrimination", "lawyer", "law suit", "bankruptcy".

You want to implement the function: Output = A + B'C'D'A + (CD + B').
How would you do this?

Are you asking me? I wouldn't give it any thought. If that's all "you"
have for me to do, you can't afford me. Any half-idiot would plug it into
a program and have the bloody thing designed *and* timed.

(leave space for the would be employee to enter schematics)

What if the candidate thinks in HDL? What if the candidate can solve
such trivial problems by inspection? Are you saying that you're so
tight-assed that only schematics may apply? Shit, schematics come
*way* after the problem has been solved.

If the would be employee can't answer this or produces an ugly quagmire
of over 100 gates, then they could quickly be excluded from a face to
face interview. On the other hand if they produce a very elegant
solution using the least possible gates, then it might be justifiable to
do a face to face interview provided the rest of their answers to the
other questions are reasonable.

Are you saying that every employee should have identical skills? Man, you
have a warped sense of reality. The fact is that projects form around hte
people, not the other way around. If everyone were cookies from the same
cutter, nothing would get done.

Or maybe a question for switch mode power supply designer:

Ah, so now you have to have a seperate (and regulated) test for every
member of the team. Have fun with the lawyers.

(show full and detailed schematics of a typical SMPS) The above
powersupply has been found to have an unstable control loop. (provide
relevant details such as capacitor ESR, etc.) Modify the schematics so
the power supply is stable.

Or for some other type of electronics job, maybe one question might be
like:

(show schematics of some circuit with a few errors in it) When the
circuit shown above was prototyped and tested on the bench the device
didn't work right. What is wrong with the design? Provide a
description of how you might fix it.

You get the idea.

Yes, I get *your* idea. You're inviting every Tom, Dick, and Esquire into
your house to feed off your bottom line. If that's what *you* want to do,
fine. The fact is that you're way out of line.

The employer can make the test as long as they want (and should). This
will also be helpful for would be employees that don't know for sure if
they are applying for the right kind of job and if they could handle it
or not. This kind of test would be far more fair than a strict X years
experience requirement.

There is *nothing* better than x-years of *relevant* experience.
Experience carries a lot of information with it. Newbs haven't had the
opportunity to fail. We learn from failures more than text books.

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?


No, but it seemed relevant that I established some degree of credibility
since you were using words that suggested I was an idiot.

Not! It added nothing but braggadocio to your errant claims.

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.


No need for it to be a minute, a pre-interview test could be made
arbitrarily lengthy since the employer doesn't have to pay employee
candidates jack doodly.

Without a doubt experience is a very valuable thing.

Then what *IS* your point? Yikes!

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.


I agree in this example such a requirement may have something to do with
employees hanging around with this kind of job. On the other hand
prospective employees for design/engineering jobs such as the OP's are
comparatively stable, but they do need to have some degree of mental
flexibility. Discriminating against the most mentally flexible people
doesn't make much sense for a job that requires mental flexibility.

The fact is that you assume a *lot*. I trust you don't own your own
engineering business (nor do I).

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:35:56 -0800, bigcat wrote:

Fritz Schlunder wrote:
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.03.27.17.32.57.791930@att.bizzzz...
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:37:54 -0700, Fritz Schlunder wrote:

I agree with Fritz on this one. I was doing multilayer PCBs for a large
company at a young age after about 2 weeks learning the system, having
never used anything like it before. Before that job I only designed 1
and 2 layer boards with crepe tape.

Ok, your point is? ...that you weren't qualified for the job?

10 years experience to design pcbs is laughable, and is sure to put off
any employee that has even a glimmer of hope for the future. You will
only get the ones that have no chance of ever doing anything better,
and know it. If you want dead end employees whose work is so bad no-one
will consider promoting them, thats your choice, but if I were a
potential employee, your company wouldnt be mine.

My guess is that you've never designed a high-end PCB. Sure, any phool
can design at audio frequencies.

If you want your new meployee to stick around for 1 month+, ask for 1
months experience in any sit down job, it doesnt matter whether its pcb
design or not.

Bullshit. The point was that gardening is a tough job. They wanted
people who had done it for a year (after a year they tend to last longer).
Engineering work (I hesitate to say that PCB layout is "engineering") has
far different set of requirements of its practitioners. I tend to look at
"layout" as *BOOORRRING* as landscaping is physically hard work.

The bottom line is that the employer is the one with the hammer. If you
don't like it, become the employer. Until then, I'm not going to cry for
you.

--
Keith

 

[Clarence_A]

"Rob Gaddi" <rgaddi@bcm.YUMMYSPAMtmc.edu> wrote in message
news:d29bik$bh4@gazette.corp.bcm.tmc.edu...

Clarence_A wrote:

All generalizations are FALSE, including this one!

'GE-600' Computer used 9 layer impedance controlled boards in
the
'60s. They were no harder to lay out than any other board and
I
have been laying out boards since it was done with pen and
ink.


Okay, I'll bite, how does one go about stacking an odd layer
board?

Pretty usual now days. Not used by all fab houses.

See ABSE "Stack_5"

 

[Rob Gaddi]

Clarence_A wrote:

"Rob Gaddi" <rgaddi@bcm.YUMMYSPAMtmc.edu> wrote in message
news:d29bik$bh4@gazette.corp.bcm.tmc.edu...

Clarence_A wrote:

All generalizations are FALSE, including this one!

'GE-600' Computer used 9 layer impedance controlled boards in

the

'60s. They were no harder to lay out than any other board and

I

have been laying out boards since it was done with pen and

ink.


Okay, I'll bite, how does one go about stacking an odd layer

board?

Pretty usual now days. Not used by all fab houses.

See ABSE "Stack_5"


Alright, having looked over the stackup, I remain confused. Back when

I was an undergrad they told us that you couldn't do things like that
because all the copper had to be on a core. And because the asymmetry
in the stackup would cause the board to warp, especially if you had any
interior planes.

So what didn't they tell me?

 

[Rob Gaddi]

Clarence_A wrote:

All generalizations are FALSE, including this one!

'GE-600' Computer used 9 layer impedance controlled boards in the
'60s. They were no harder to lay out than any other board and I
have been laying out boards since it was done with pen and ink.


Okay, I'll bite, how does one go about stacking an odd layer board?

 

[Rob Gaddi]

Clarence_A wrote:

"Rob Gaddi" <rgaddi@bcm.YUMMYSPAMtmc.edu> wrote in message
news:d29bik$bh4@gazette.corp.bcm.tmc.edu...


Okay, I'll bite, how does one go about stacking an odd layer

board?

Pretty usual now days. Not used by all fab houses.

See ABSE "Stack_5"


No can do, our network admins have decided that the entire alt.binaries

tree is either porn or stolen software and blocked the whole shebang.
Can you either webhost or email it to me?

 

[Clarence_A]

"Rob Gaddi" wrote

Clarence_A wrote:
"Rob Gaddi" wrote
Clarence_A wrote:

All generalizations are FALSE, including this one!
'GE-600' Computer used 9 layer impedance controlled
boards in the '60s. They were no harder to lay out
than any other board and I have been laying out
boards since it was done with pen and ink.

Okay, I'll bite, how does one go about stacking an odd layer
board?

Pretty usual now days. Not used by all fab houses.
See ABSE "Stack_5"

Alright, having looked over the stackup, I remain confused.
Back when I was an undergrad they told us that you couldn't
do things like that because all the copper had to be on a core.
And because the asymmetry in the stackup would cause the board
to warp, especially if you had any interior planes.

So what didn't they tell me?

That a process improves over time, and with enough money you can
do anything! The Nine layer boards were very expensive at that
time, but my last layout was 10 layers and cost wasn't
particularly high.

"They" probably also told you no blind vias or 2 mil vias, yet my
last board had over 1000 2mil vias and 800 buried blind vias. No
through hole parts used either. Micro vias (2mil) were unheard
of a few years ago. It was 10mil as a minimum until laser drills
came into more common use. But "Micro vias" are only between
layers not through the board.

The illustration of the stack is graphic, but the implementation
will vary with the venders process. The old five layers were
laminated with three single sided layers and one two sided layer.
The 6 mil layer in the prepreg for the odd layer doesn't show
graphically.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:10:40 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:

"Rob Gaddi" wrote
Clarence_A wrote:
"Rob Gaddi" wrote
Clarence_A wrote:

All generalizations are FALSE, including this one!
'GE-600' Computer used 9 layer impedance controlled
boards in the '60s. They were no harder to lay out
than any other board and I have been laying out
boards since it was done with pen and ink.

Okay, I'll bite, how does one go about stacking an odd layer
board?

Pretty usual now days. Not used by all fab houses.
See ABSE "Stack_5"

Alright, having looked over the stackup, I remain confused.
Back when I was an undergrad they told us that you couldn't
do things like that because all the copper had to be on a core.
And because the asymmetry in the stackup would cause the board
to warp, especially if you had any interior planes.

So what didn't they tell me?

That a process improves over time, and with enough money you can
do anything!

---
That's an interesting proposition, and I agree that a process can
improve over time, but I disagree with your position that with enough
money anything is possible since, with reference to a fixed time frame
and regardless of the finite resources available in our world, no
amount of money is available which can set a thinker freer than he can
set himself.
---

The Nine layer boards were very expensive at that
time, but my last layout was 10 layers and cost wasn't
particularly high.

"They" probably also told you no blind vias or 2 mil vias, yet my
last board had over 1000 2mil vias and 800 buried blind vias. No
through hole parts used either. Micro vias (2mil) were unheard
of a few years ago. It was 10mil as a minimum until laser drills
came into more common use. But "Micro vias" are only between
layers not through the board.

The illustration of the stack is graphic, but the implementation
will vary with the venders process. The old five layers were
laminated with three single sided layers and one two sided layer.
The 6 mil layer in the prepreg for the odd layer doesn't show
graphically.

---
It strikes me that, with a volume limit imposed, as surface features
increase and their interconnections increase, rigid interconnections
between the various layers will need to relinquish their rigidity and
yield to free-floating connections isolated from each other by
insulating sheaths. Myelin, for us.

Soon, we will build beings which will be as confounded about us as we
are about who built us, and as He is about who built Him.

--
John Fields

 

[Charles Edmondson]

Fritz Schlunder wrote:

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.03.27.17.32.57.791930@att.bizzzz...

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


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.



Well that is the problem with words like "common" whose definition wasn't
quantified in this context. So we can both be right on this. My version of
the definition of "common" is evidently different from yours.

That said, in 1995 I was using a 486 DX33 and it didn't have any BGA parts
on it. In 1999 I worked for an electronics manufacturing company with X-ray
equipment needed for working with BGAs. While that was in no way amazing in
1999, not all of the local competitors in the business had the tools needed
for working with BGA parts.



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.



That is often true, but consumer products dominate in terms of volume. In
terms of the total number of PCBs produced in 1995, I'm sure the number
using 10+ layers takes a very small part of the pie.



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...



I never said it was impossible for others either. But regardless this is
way off topic of my main point in my first post. My orignal point was I had
a problem with employers effectively descriminating against smart people.
Descrimination against smart people (as well as responsible people) is
rather epidemic in our society. Most people are totally unaware of this
simply because it doesn't effect them.

Take for instance the minimum driver licensing age. It varies by state in
the US, but is typically somewhere around 16. When I was 13 I was
definitely responsible enough to drive a car, which would have been very
valuable for me for transport to and from college. No bussing system or
mass transit was available in this area. Unfortunately due to societal
descrimination against responsible people I had to ride a bicyle (uphill
both directions in the snow, etc.) to school instead. How fair was that?

Of course, one might argue that even a very responsible 13 year old
shouldn't be allow to drive since if they caused a car wreck (even if a pure
accident and not due to irresponsible behavior) they could not pay for the
damages.

I would counter that argument by saying that the very responsible 13 year
old wouldn't be able to pay for the damages since our society further
descriminates against the responsible and capable 13 year old with child
labor laws that prevent them from working for money.

The point is many aspects of our society are simply too ridged. The rules
are too unbending. There isn't enough room for exceptions. My specific
qualm at the moment is with employers that descriminate against smart people
with their X years experience requirements. Why do I even mention the
problem? Well I want to change it, that is why. The way I see it the first
step towards fixing this problem is to make people aware that it even exists
by pointing it out in a public forum. One of the later steps is to figure
out what method of hiring people would be better and more fair.

The whole process has problems including the resume writing/submittal/review
steps. The resume process gives a great advantage to people who are
dishonest and those who are perfectly comfortable bragging about how great
they are. An honest/modest person who feels uncomfortable bragging about
themself will have a disadvantage. He who lies on their resume the most is
the most likely to be contacted for an interview. This isn't right. This
is bad.

I propose employers should adopt a strategy of creating long
questionaires/quizzes available to any prospective employee. The employer
is free to make up the quiz/questionaire however they see fit, but
presumably would include actual questions relevant to the job requirements.
For example, for a digital design type job one question might be:

You want to implement the function: Output = A + B'C'D'A + (CD + B'). How
would you do this?
(leave space for the would be employee to enter schematics)

If the would be employee can't answer this or produces an ugly quagmire of
over 100 gates, then they could quickly be excluded from a face to face
interview. On the other hand if they produce a very elegant solution using
the least possible gates, then it might be justifiable to do a face to face
interview provided the rest of their answers to the other questions are
reasonable.

Or maybe a question for switch mode power supply designer:

(show full and detailed schematics of a typical SMPS)
The above powersupply has been found to have an unstable control loop.
(provide relevant details such as capacitor ESR, etc.) Modify the
schematics so the power supply is stable.

Or for some other type of electronics job, maybe one question might be like:

(show schematics of some circuit with a few errors in it)
When the circuit shown above was prototyped and tested on the bench the
device didn't work right. What is wrong with the design? Provide a
description of how you might fix it.

You get the idea.

The employer can make the test as long as they want (and should). This will
also be helpful for would be employees that don't know for sure if they are
applying for the right kind of job and if they could handle it or not. This
kind of test would be far more fair than a strict X years experience
requirement.





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?



No, but it seemed relevant that I established some degree of credibility
since you were using words that suggested I was an idiot.



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.



No need for it to be a minute, a pre-interview test could be made
arbitrarily lengthy since the employer doesn't have to pay employee
candidates jack doodly.

Without a doubt experience is a very valuable thing.



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.



I agree in this example such a requirement may have something to do with
employees hanging around with this kind of job. On the other hand
prospective employees for design/engineering jobs such as the OP's are
comparatively stable, but they do need to have some degree of mental
flexibility. Discriminating against the most mentally flexible people
doesn't make much sense for a job that requires mental flexibility.

Fritz,
I sounds like you were a young genius, and now find it hard to get out
of the prejudices that you ran into early. It also looks like you
haven't begun to figure out the job hunting experience, either, but let
me give you a few pointers.

First, manager hire people that can get their job done, period. If he
doesn't think you can do it, FOR WHATEVER REASON, then he won't hire you.

Second, HR is tasked with preventing, as much as possible, that a
manager find that person they are looking for. Therefore, managers
often hire schmucks who can't do the job well, but maybe can at least
get it done eventually. It is the best the can do with what they can find.

Third, take a look at the Ask the Headhunter site. He has a lot about
the first two facts, and how to make them work for you, and not against
you. If you are talking to an HR person before you have talked to the
hiring manager, then you are probably not going to get the job.

Charlie