I want to get into microelectronics? Where should I start? How do I get into amateur engineering?
I have a math/CS background (including logic and programming), and no serious experience with either electronics or engineering.
>>915031
>I have a math/CS background
unbelievable as it sounds computing and electronics apparently do not mix.
i do embedded systems and i have people tell me every fucking day how they do computing and they don't get electronics or they do electronics and they can't wrap their heads around software.
electronics is pretty much redundant nowadays.
if by microelectronics you mean connecting a few SOC's together then what do you need to learn its basically lego.
if you want to properly learn anything about electronics then go to a library and find the oldest dustiest smelliest book about electronics on the shelves and read it.
>>915031
If you had an accredited CS degree, you'd already have done electronics.
>>915092
CS has nothing to do with electronics, it's basically a math degree with some programming.
>>915058
This. Especially this line
>if you want to properly learn anything about electronics then go to a library and find the oldest dustiest smelliest book about electronics on the shelves and read it.
Anyway:
>i do embedded systems and i have people tell me every fucking day how they do computing and they don't get electronics or they do electronics and they can't wrap their heads around software.
This is also true. Very few people get both. Even those who get both usually have a strong preference for one of them. Also, it depends on the type of programming. For example embedded programming (depending on what you do) can be closer to "engineering thinking" than developing an OOP C# Calendar.
I guess the reason for this is that electronics is mainly physics+intuition and has a certain dynamics, while programming is more hard logic and being the same.
>>915031
What do you mean under microelectronics? I'm not sure you use that term correctly.
Anyway if you really want to learn electronics you need to start at the beginning. Physics background is important if you want to understand what same underlying concepts apply to different things and how things actually work. Analog circuits is the heart of electronics. So you need to look up basic circuit theorems, resistors, capacitors, inductors, opamps. Circuit made of those elements. Analyzing them in time-domain/frequency-domain and what these things are. In fact, you need to know the basics of an EE degree, if you're serious and want to do something serious.
Actually I don't want to tell you how exactly to get started, it depends on how you like to learn. I'm not against using an Arduino for example, but you should know that with using only Arduinos and digital logic ICs you will only scratch the surface of what there really is. Plus you will miss analog circuits and how to properly analyze/understand/design circuits and why they work. Using such tools abstracts away a lot of stuff which you don't even know exists. The logic of designing something digital and something analogue is extremely different. Even digital systems won't work as simple as in programming. Hazards are one example.
I'm not saying you shouldn't use Arduinos or digital logic (hell mixed signal systems (analog+digital) are the shit today), but if you want to do more than drive a 7-segment display or blink a LED then you need to get heavily into the basics and heart of electronics: analog circuits, circuit analysis, signals.
I recommend starting out with a book (or books) which covers the general stuff: basic physics principles, basic circuit elements, circuit theorems, filters, diodes, BJTs, (FETs), BJT circuits, amplifiers, OpAmps, analysis in time/frequency domain.
Oh yeah, you will need math for serious stuff.
>>915162
*Accredited* CS degrees allow you to (with professional membership and after an apprenticeship) become a software engineer, and allow direct-entry to a degree in EE.
You should expect to graduate having already done discreet logic, microcontrollers, advanced calculus, computer architecture, and realtime systems; on top of all the stuff the cow-college CS course teaches you.
>>915173
>*Accredited* CS
Hmm... Thanks. My bad.
I'm from Europe. I didn't know that CS there is that broad. I thought that's CE.
Here (in my country,although everything here is accepted in member states of the European Union) CS is about math and programming. CSE (Computer Science Engineering) degree has electronics, signals and systems, micro-controllers, computer architectures, PLC systems, measurement lab, etc., but a bit less CS theory. CSE here also allows entering into CS/CSE/EE/Mechatronics MSc degrees (plus others I don't know about). You need to complete a few degree specific BSc courses you didn't do because of your different degree though.
>>915092
Most CS degrees these days don't cover electronics other than very superficially. The electronics that they do cover are in the context of computing, not general electronics. There are two reasons for this. First, there's a separate dedicated degree called computer engineering, which is a mix of computer science, electrical engineering, and and a lot of computer-specific electronics. Second, a traditional CS degree is more concerned about how to use a machine rather than how to build one, and it takes a lot of time to do this right.
Most CS curriculums are something like the following:
Year 1: Computer programming / calculus / discrete math
Year 2: Data structures, algorithms, asymptotic analysis, usually an in-depth class on programming paradigms and/or a specific language, more calculus and discrete math
Years 3&4: Start taking electives, usually a class on computer architecture, systems software, advanced algorithms & data structures, operating systems, programming language theory, automata theory, compilers, software engineering, graphics, performance, embedded computing, machine learning, lots of electives that are more cutting edge stuff
CS in general moves pretty fast. When I graduated in 2006 the hot senior elective was parallel programming. These days most undergrads are being taught parallel programming in their 100 and 200 level classes.
Since circuit design and electronics in general are pretty irrelevant for most CS people these days, you're not exposed to it unless you take some electives that really get into it. You can fill up multiple graduate level courses on processor design and computer architectures and never even get into the electronics and circuit design side of it, because there's just so much to learn these days.
I'm about to finish a PhD in CS in pretty significantly systems stuff and know virtually no electronics. The electronics I do know is 90% about digital circuits, which is probably not what OP wants.
>>915173
You're talking out your ass. There's no generally recognized professional accrediting organization for CS. The closest things would be the ACM or the IEEE, but anyone can join those and membership doesn't mean anything professionally. There's certainly nothing like the ASCE for civil engineers, where governments require accreditation before you're allowed to practice engineering professionally.
I've also never, ever heard of a CS "apprenticeship", and I've been in this game for about a decade at this point.
Lastly, you're way out of date on your topics. Microcontrollers are not a standard part of the CS curriculum, nor is advanced calc (unless you count the regular Calc 1-2-3 sequence as "advanced", which it's not).
Real-time systems are not a standard topic either, and I happen to be a real-time software engineer. If you happen to go to a university with someone who has the skills, they might offer real-time systems as a senior elective, but it's certainly not something you should "expect" to graduate with. You're also leaving out where the bulk of CS study is these days- which is applications stuff. Computer graphics, vision, robotics, HCI, big data, machine learning, social networks, artificial intelligence, etc. This is on top of the solid systems stuff you're supposed to know: OS, compilers, networking, programming languages, etc.
>>915210
You know you could have googled in less time than it took you to write that.
http://www.bcs.org/category/14957
>>915210
>There's no generally recognized professional accrediting organization for CS.
>I happen to be a real-time software engineer.
These statements contradict each other. If you're not chartered, you're not a real-time software engineer, you're a real-time software guy.
>>915247
I don't need to Google it, because this is what I do for a living. You either misunderstand what you're talking about or you're lying because you don't want to be wrong.
There is no computer-science equivalent of being a licensed or chartered engineer anywhere I'm familiar with, which includes the US and the UK. Anyone can call themselves a software engineer in all 50 states or the UK, and there is no legal regulation of that term. This is quite unlike some other fields, such as civil engineering, where you've got meet certain qualifications to call yourself an engineer (or else you'll go to jail).
The closest thing is in the UK, where you've got to have a "charter" to call yourself a "chartered software engineer", but since there's no legal requirement to be chartered before you do work, calling yourself a chartered software engineer is just listing your charter as an additional job qualification like someone might call themselves a certified Cisco network technician.
>>915247
>These statements contradict each other. If you're not chartered, you're not a real-time software engineer, you're a real-time software guy.
No, they don't. I'm a real-time software engineer because I've got a 6 years of post-graduate education and a long track record that speaks for itself, not because someone looked at my transcript and rubber-stamped me.
You're a software engineer if you do software engineering tasks. That's it. Everyone in the industry understands this, and that the title "engineer" doesn't mean the same thing as it does in other fields.
>>915247
Also, even places that regulate the term "engineer" have what is called the "industrial exemption", which means that if your employer calls you an engineer, then you get to use the title.
This is common at any large company or engineering firm. The vast majority of their technical staff are not publicly licensed or chartered engineers, but the project leads and CEOs/CTOs are. But, they're all hired as engineers and they're all legally allowed to call themselves engineers.
This has absolutely nothing to do with CS for the reasons I've already stated, I'm just explaining that there's no possible circumstance under which you could be considered correct on this (at least in the US and the UK, and most of the other Western European countries).
>>915058
>if by microelectronics you mean connecting a few SOC's together then what do you need to learn its basically lego.
"connecting few SOC's together" would be PCB design more than anything, which is far away from being "basically lego".
Although why you'd need more than one SoC on a given device is beyond me, since SoC already means most of the system in on a single chip.
Microelectronics means the design of integrated electronic circuits in technologies such as CMOS or GaAs, that can later be fabricated and packaged into a "chip" that you can place and solder on a PCB.
This is in contrast with "regular" electronics design, where you make up a circuit out of existing commercial parts.
With IC design, the circuit building blocks, from passives (caps, inductors, resistors) to actives (MOSFETs, diodes, etc) can be sized and drawn as required.
>>915031
At uni we started with "Microelectronic Circuits" by Sedra/Smith.
It's maybe a bit too academic, and perhaps not the best introduction to the topic, but it's a starting point nonethess.
Get an arduino and make LEDs blink..
>>915427
>in technologies such as CMOS or GaAs
well thats not what it meant when i was a kid.
fair enough.
Learn the basics of electronics, get some basic components and AVR/PIC chips (AVR is easier to start with due to much better resources available), learn how to design a basic PCB or use a development board (such as Arduino but I wouldnt recommend those because the IDE and libraries are stupid), read the datasheet of everything you use. Get some projects done. Gradually increase the scale and complexity of projects.
>>915164
>but if you want to do more than drive a 7-segment display or blink a LED then you need to get heavily into the basics and heart of electronics: analog circuits, circuit analysis, signals
Not true. You can do a lot without getting deep into circuit analysis or analog circuits. Building a simple robot would be one example of a digital/programming heavy project that requires none of that. But it of course limits your possibilities a lot.
>>916357
Yeah, but as you said, that would be "digital/programming heavy", and not really electronics, much less anything to do with microelectronics.
That's just embedded programming and connecting pre-built blocks together.
Unless OP doesn't really mean microelectronics, but something else, like embedded systems.
