Open thoughts

[Roy MParticipant @roym]

It took 30odd years for the breadth of my skills and accumulated technical knowledge to be appreciated. My ONC has been consistently dismissed as a poor mans A level, An absolute travesty given the breadth of subjects required. My job now (at 65!) allows me to design and make production fixtures and improve processes. I can fix most things, repair plant, weld , use all machines, process and program new parts, make press tools, fixtures, injection moulds, aero jig building and high precision machining. To name a few accomplishments. I am sure I am not alone in having achieved such skills,and this is not a trumpet blowing blog. My main,albeit rambling, point is the absence of opportunity these days to squire such skills and experience in engineering, shorter more defined training periods, provide a narrow but effective knowledge base. But sadly the days of transferring and gaining skills by having many diverse jobs are surely in the past.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

I wonder if it's not perhaps rather deeper than we think. Whilst I agree that perhaps university training as such is more geared to theoretical than practical (not that I've any direct experience of university training), I do think that there has to be an inbuilt bias in a person for practical ability. I suspect some of it can be learnt, but unless there is an inate interest in doing it oneself, then the practical ability will never flourish. I think that even if a person does have practical ability, there is also the wish to improve that ability that goes with it: this why a lot of us are as good as we are – we have an inate ability plus the desire to improve it. When all said and done, what does SMEE stand for? Society of Model and EXPERIMENTAL Engineers, and what is experimental other than the desire to improve by doing and learning? And of course, practical experimentation leads to that other important facet – experience.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating university although I admit it does sound like it, but as someone has already said, there are too many degrees on Mickey Mouse subjects which are not worth the paper they are written on. We do need research universities as otherwise how would we get to know about, eg quantum mechanics, but do we need media studies? I do think that we need to cut down on Tony Blair's 50% of people at university, and instead direct able students into more practical – read useful – courses at Technical Colleges.

Just for info, I have three children. My daughter left school at 16 and ended up working for HMRC. As I understand it, she has recently qualified to become the equivalent of a 1st line manager. My elder son gained a 2.2 MPhys and is now teaching Physics in a secondary school. He also runs a self-taught website business and has a house for let. Plus he used to play rugby, and still goes skiing. My younger son started off well and went to university to obtain a MPhys. He fell by the wayside and ended up with a 3rd BSc. He is now working on minimum wage in a supermarket with very little ambition as far as I can tell. Here we have three people, one didn't go to university yet has done very well, another did go to university and is using it and doing well whilst the third also went to university but should never have done so.

I'd just like to add a little bit more about some of the things I did at BT. In the '70's I was part of a specialist group investigating poorly performing exchanges. When we weren't doing that, we were designing and building one-off pieces of test equipment both electronic and mechanical, usually as a result of a perceived need by someone else. In the 80's & early 90's I was involved in ensuring there was sufficient capacity in exchanges for the amount of traffic carried and planning exchange transfers from old technology to new technology plus the planning of extensions to existing exchanges. In the early '90's I was involved in initial design for exchange extensions where these were eventually placed with external contractors. Not bad for a lad with three 'O' levels and a C&G Full Tech Certificate.

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

Edited By Peter G. Shaw on 04/02/2014 11:42:05

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Peter

The difference is this:-

When you and I worked for the GPO / Post Office Telephones / BT Engineering Department EVERYONE ( apart from a very few) started at the bottom and progressed through the ranks. All were given the opportunity to attend college day / evening courses for academic training – success here being required for promotion. I had five years of this. Specialist training, directed at the individual's job needs, was provided by numerous, in house, technical training and management training schools. In my 35 years with the company I attended over 40 such courses. The cost of this training must have been enormous but what they ended up with was experts – but experts in a limited field. What happens today is that firms will no longer bear these costs and expect people to to come to them with qualifications gained, at their own ( huge) expense, from Universities. I guess there is still some training within BT but I'll bet not of the scope or depth that we experienced.

I enjoyed my time there – firstly working, hands on, with the evolving electronics as the changes from valves to semiconductors happened and then in network planning and management of various functions. The best thing of all though was the people that I worked with there. Happy times – I suspect that it's not quite so happy now!

Regards

Norman

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Norman,

Yes, you are quite correct about the training – Otley, Harrogate, Stone. And yes, I was stricly an exchange man.

These days though, I do wonder just how much training is needed. No longer do we have Strowger/Crossbar/TXE2/TXE4 all of which required dedicated trained personnel with diagnostic abilities. But what does digital need? Card changers? Diagnosis by computer I suspect, ie "go change this unit". Trained monkeys. Which reminds me of the old joke which came in I think with TXE2. Every exchange needs one man and a dog. The man was there to feed the dog whilst the dog was there to keep the man away from the equipment. Apologies to any TXE2 people reading this.

Seriously though, where is the progression tree now? Ok, there is OpenReach but how far up the ladder can they go, and to where? And how well are they trained? But when the system does eventually become fully digital as a part of the internet, then what? More card changers controlled by a select few highly trained individuals based, if we are lucky, in Ipswich or somewhere? Or more likely in Japan, or China or India. Downskilling it's called.

Which means that ultimately, people with any interest at all in doing things themselves will end up being self-taught, which is what a lot of model engineers seem to be.

There is one thing though, and that is that the very basic principles of telephony have not yet changed, although I think it will eventually. That is, that at the moment, exchanges still need to be able to deal with the 100+year old principles of transmitting information (signalling, data and ringing) between human and exchange. How many people still have dial 'phones – we do, it's one my wife bought a few years ago s/h because "she liked it"! Even FTTC still requires a local loop, so I understand. But eventually? Wireless for all?

I think it's very unfortunate the way the (Western) world is going. In general, old skills are becoming obsolete but the replacing technology is way beyond the reach of most people. I think that the future looks increasingly bleak for a lot of people who will be condemned to eking out a basic level of existence whilst a select few individuals will be extremely highly paid but with huge responsibilities. I don't know what the answer is.

I suspect that it's not quite so happy now!

I know it isn't. My brother, 8 years younger than me couldn't wait to get out but he couldn't get early retirement because it was no longer available unless the retiree lost a lot of their pension. I got early retirement with maximum entitlement because BT was then in the throes of rapid downsizing and wanted rid of people.

Regards,

Peter

[IanTParticipant @iant]

Strowger 2-way Switches! Ah…..

Happy days in Hong Kong Central Exchange – pottering around the aisles with my Buttinsky and a burnisher looking for dud switch contacts. Funny how time mellows the memory.

IanT

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

 

Hi Peter, I still have a real ding-a-ling-ling one with a dial, it is quite old and apart from a paint job and a connecting wire from a modern phone it is completely original and apart from not being able to dial out using the pulse dial, it is fully functional for ringing and receiving calls. I gave it a paint job because it was in such a shabby state as it was used in the workshop envioroment where I used to work.

I had one or two of this type when my children were little and they came to see me at weekends, which they used to play with.

It's not really a see through one, its just a bit of double exposure photography. Probably still got one kicking about in an old box in a shed.

Rgards Nick.

 

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 04/02/2014 20:46:26

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

My parents used to have a red one in the same style as Nick's 'transparent' phone. People used to ask my Mum if Dad was somehow involved with the emergency services.

The phone at Grandad's/Dad's shop was black bakelite. There was a separate box with a handle on you had to wind up and wake the exchange before you could ring out. In those days numbers were four figures (4156 and 4153). I remember when we had STD officially introduced – we got a leaflet explaining how it worked but my recollection was that we had already been using it for some time. This must have been the early 70s, wikipedia says the roll-out was from 1958 to 1979.

Neil

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Neil

All that sounds pretty modern! I remember, as a lad just started work with the GPO, visiting a rural telephone exchange. This was an entirely manual exchange consisting of a single switchboard with cords located in the local postmaster's sitting room. The operator would come in each day to work but at nights it was down to the postmaster to put through any calls.

He had a bed in the corner of the room for night duty! Sounds sooooo prehistoric now but it' s only about 50 years ago!

Cheers

Norman

[Rik ShawParticipant @rikshaw]

It's not model engineering I know but there seems to be enough interest on the thread for me to chuck in my 2D's worth.

We have modern digital phones in the house but my favourite phone is this one in our hallway. Fully converted with a new original style braided handset cord it's a pleasure to hear and use. It looks as though it was once in a public call box.

In the little draw under the phone in a transparent holder is the following information:

Rik

[mark costello 1Participant @markcostello1]

I don't know if it is the same across the pond as it is in The Colonies, but I keep a rotary dial here at home as when We get a storm and the cell phone towers go on the blink a rotary style will still work, not 100% but still more often.

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

Added bonus for pulse dialing…you can tell the ” for enquires press 1 etc” wallahs to get lost….he he…

[Anonymous]

It's odd that nobody has mentioned money. After all engineering is all about money. One might well invent a better mouse trap, but if it costs 10 times the alternative, but isn't 10 times as effective then you're likely to be out of business.

Like it or not I think that the 'man on the bench' is on his way out. The discussion on telephone exchanges is a case in point. Back in the old days when exchange equipment wasn't terribly reliable people were employed to be on site to fix problems as they arose. Now that exchange equipment is more reliable those people are not needed. But the problem is that their knowledge is specific; once that particular equipment is no longer used the knowledge is worthless. It is now cheaper to employ a card swapper as required, and it is not economic, or even possible, to repair the damaged equipment.

The person who understands the theory can adapt to new technologies, as the theory stays the same. After all the work of Shannon is just as applicable to a 3G mobile 'phone system as it was to the older landline systems. But the person with equipment specific knowledge is out on a limb. Unfortunately I suspect that the really good engineers, with theoretical understanding of the fundamentals, will prosper while the rest will whither.

Regards,

Andrew

[Rik ShawParticipant @rikshaw]

WITHER – no "h".

Rik

"A" level GCE Eng. Lit. and a degree of nit picking.

 

Edited By Rik Shaw on 05/02/2014 17:08:04

[GaryMParticipant @garym]

Posted by Rik Shaw on 05/02/2014 14:12:52:

………..In the little draw under the phone ……….

Rik

Hi Rik,

Sorry I couldn't resist this but the square box with a handle on the front, usually in a chest is a drawer not a draw. This crops up over and over again and I always have to resist the urge to correct it. But not this time.

And I know I make mistakes. Meant in good humour.

Gary

Studying for a nit-picking degree.

[Rik ShawParticipant @rikshaw]

Well aimed Gary – keks down and bent over I deserve your accurately delivered kick!

Rik

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Lived for a year in a country area (Awhitu, Manakau Penincilar) near Auckland in 1961, we had a wall mounted Ericson, wooden, with magneto, our call was long short long, there were 8 others on our line. Ian S C

[Gordon WParticipant @gordonw]

Many years ago I worked with an Aussie in England, he always used call boxes, and always used the phone' rest to tap out numbers, always for free. He even used the tapping code to dial 999..Of course it can't be done now.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Just to revert back to some of th earlier comments about experience.

Last night, my younger son, he of the 3rd BSc Physics/Minimum wage supermarket worker/25 years old started asking about repairing a door frame at his girlfriends house where the screw holes were worn out. At one point he made the comment that he had never before done anything like this in his life.

Later, I worked out when I was his age, and thought about what I had done/was doing at that time. Here's a brief list – jack of all trades, master of none one might say:

Designed, built and installed a test selector for a remote small exchange.

Been through scooter, motorbike, A35 van and now on new Morris 1000 traveller Including doing all maintenance, including replacing big end shells on the A35, and various parts on the scooter & motorbike.

Installed new consumer unit, and other than lighting wiring, completely provided new wiring, sockets, switches etc in parents house.

Built small stage lighting board including rheostat type dimmers and low voltage battery operated emergency exit signs.

Fully qualified as maintenance technician for customers overhead and internal telephone circuits, including some limited work on special faults investigation.

Basic/intermediate level qualified as maintenance technician for Strowger exchanges .

Replaced broken glass in various windows.

Repaired reel to reel tape recorder and rewired valve amplifier correctly plus built another amplifier from scratch by obtaining the components to suit.

Devised and made a device to prevent my parents outside toilet door from swinging open too far.

Spent time working on a farm, dealing with animals, driving tractor and other smelly manual jobs.

Singing in a church choir.

Ok, nothing really outstanding there, I don't think, but it does show the differences between my son and me.

I also found it very gratifying that my other son, 37, Mphys, etc, recently rang up for advice as to why a light fitting didn't work and was blowing fuses. (Turned out he'd managed to pull the cable onto a recently installed long screw thus piercing the insulation, but I had to guide him through how to test using a multimeter.)

But what it does show is that from an early age I was doing all sorts of practical things which my two sons never did. I'm not saying that they are incapable of doing them, but that neither the opportunity nor the need has arisen, whereas in my case some of the things were because I had to do them, eg at work, some were out of interest, whilst some were due to being right royally ripped off by so-called professionals. Perhaps as well it's an indication of just how much more reliabe things are thus requiring less maintenance, plus professionals are that much better.

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

[Thomas GudeParticipant @thomasgude37285]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 06/02/2014 11:39:20:

Just to revert back to some of th earlier comments about experience…..

….from an early age I was doing all sorts of practical things which my two sons never did. I'm not saying that they are incapable of doing them, but that neither the opportunity nor the need has arisen, whereas in my case some of the things were because I had to do them, eg at work, some were out of interest, whilst some were due to being right royally ripped off by so-called professionals. Perhaps as well it's an indication of just how much more reliabe things are thus requiring less maintenance, plus professionals are that much better.

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

Sorry Peter but I am not sure what the motive of your comments are. Am I supposed to understand that you gained all the skills to fix your bikes, cars, doors, electrics etc off your own back? Your children have been brought into a world of high technology where dismantling a modern phone will at best tell you which way to turn a screwdriver (for me one of my playthings as a child was a rotary dial phone and I learnt at a young age how the mechanical ringer worked – lucky me!). Slap on top of this the higher cost of getting things wrong (I believe the Morris 1000 had more valves in the radio than the engine) AND legislation regarding domestic electrics there is not much room for us young'uns to learn by getting our hands dirty. That world you grew up is, believe it or not, not as readily available to the new generations – it is there but in a land of services it needs searching out and it wouldn't hurt to give a guiding hand.

A thing I always find curious is the older generation (50 years+) saying things like "Oh, they can't make this any more" or "no skill left" etc – I then ask where they learnt their skills and the common answer is "Oh, I went to community college", "I did my 3 year apprenticeship" or "I gained my ONC in this or that" which is quite often followed by "Of course, they don't exist any more". To which my response would be "Well what did YOU do with them?"

You cannot take the effect and make it the cause!

As a foot note I would say that technology will guide interests – How many of you know how to program a Raspberry Pi..? I also have a few friends who studied Media at university, all who have very successful careers in Television and Film.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Thomas,

Ok, perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been.

The point is that when I was the same age as my younger son is now, I, through a combination of training, self-experimentation, reading had already gained a lot more experience and dare I say life skills type knowledge than my son has.

Yes of course I went to Technical college, but from recollection, even after 10 years at work, I had only gained the C&G Intermediate plus 1 year. Yes of course I had been on works training courses. But, no-one taught me to design the test selector albeit my manager did help with spark quenching, but the circuit operation was mine and based on earlier taught basic knowledge. No-one taught me to do vehicle maintenance – I picked it up from conversations with colleagues and friends, reading, and watching GPO mechanics. I was taught the basics of thermionic valve technology when I was 24/25 by a 17 year old apprentice – so much for college – but was then able to take it further myself. Working on mains was a combination of using GPO practice plus talking to electricians and having a go. Farm work was originally for pocket money, but the farmer was generally very supportive.

So in reality it was a combination of some training, experience, experimenting, and talking to other more knowledgable people and interest in doing it myself.

That doesn't seem to happen much these days.

There is one other thing which may help you to understand me!

As I said, I gained a C&G Full Technological Certificate. This was in Advanced Telephony and Digital Elements & Switching Principles, both with Credit. Along the way, I covered transistor theory, but did not understand it. Around 1972, I went on a GPO training course for TXE2 exchanges. A part of this course covered how to test transistors in circuit, so I now began to understand at least how they sort of worked in a practical sense, but nothing at all about designing with them. In 1974, I was tasked with producing a specific tester. After two false starts, I looked at a book which a colleague of mine was using. I found this very good and easy to understand. I eventually bought both that book and it's companion book and using the principles in those books to design an almost 100% reliable tester (main problems were the mechanical parts such as a relays and uniselectors). Since then, using those principles, I have been able to understand and design other electronic equipment, and to be able to rectify obvious design errors in other peoples circuits. In other words, formal training in electronics did next to nothing for me, whilst self-taught did a lot.

Those books were Electronic Designer's Handbook and Circuit Consultant's Casebook both by T. K. Hemingway.

For what it's worth, in 1978 I had the Sinclair Mk14 microprocessor kit and taught myself to how to program in machine language. Raspberry Pi anyone? In the early 1980's I wrote a program for the Sinclair Spectrum which was part Z80 machine code, part Basic. I also converted a Tiny Basic Startrek game to Sinclair ZX 80/81 Basic and then to Spectrum Basic. I did all this through self-teaching – I have never had formal computer programming training.

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

[HowiParticipant @howi]

From another ex GPO tech, the modern world has become one of technology users. There are the few who can design the hardware, there are more who can design the software. The rest in between is made by machines. It is this bit in the middle that has been lost to the workforce.

If one looks back, the writing on the wall was plain to see.

Old strowger exchange needed half a dozen Techs to maintain it

Crossbar (still mechanical, but much more reliable) just needed one man.

TXE 2 the first electronic exchange, usually rural, one man could look after 3 or 4

System x and y – the largest source of trouble – the technician! Keep him away from the equipment and it would last longer before going faulty. The tech + dog scenario mentioned has more truth to it than you might imagine!!! Operationally they can be monitored from anywhere, human intervention is only required to change a circuit board. The rest of the time the doors remain firmly (and securely!) Locked.

Still requires people to design hardware and software + a few to install, but is so reliable, very little maintenance is required.

Let's get away from BT for a moment and cast your minds back to the old black and white films showing people turning out of factories at the end of a shift, by the hundreds, thousands in some cases. Robots do not need to go home.

Unfortunately model engineering will go the same way as the traditional skills die out with their users. There just aren't the numbers of young people comming through with the relavent skills because the training grounds have all but gone.

Is this good or bad? Hard to say, but it is how the modern world is, like it or lump it and it is not likely to change any time soon.

I consider us to be the lucky ones.

I have done somewhat better than you Peter with my son's

All 3 went to uni, one did electrical eng and is now a well qualified network engineer, one is an accountant ( should never have a problem getting work) and the youngest has an MSc in computer games programming and gradually going up the career ladder.

The first and last I can understand (like father, like son) but don't know where the accountant came from.

Can't blame the milkman, we don't have one……………

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

This thread is in serious danger of turning into a '***** waving' contest, so I'd like to change direction just slightly.

What 'defines' intelligence in your opinion?

We all like to think that we're smart, but only the smart ones amongst us know when we're totally out of our league.

Am I arrogant to believe that I'm smarter than the bloke to my left, or am I stupid to think that the bloke to my right is above & beyond me on the brain scale?

What is intelligence? Is it practical ability, book knowledge, experience?

Edited By Mick Charity on 06/02/2014 19:23:30

Edited By JasonB on 07/02/2014 20:53:03

[Anonymous]

Posted by Mick Charity on 06/02/2014 19:05:03

What is intelligence? Is it practical ability, book knowledge, experience?

None of the above, it is that which is measured by an intelligence test.

Andrew

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Andrew Johnston on 06/02/2014 19:23:49:

Posted by Mick Charity on 06/02/2014 19:05:03

What is intelligence? Is it practical ability, book knowledge, experience?

None of the above, it is that which is measured by an intelligence test.

Andrew

Who sets the questions for these so called intelligence tests, that's what I want to know.

If they're so f"(_)@@1N intelligent, why are they left back in the classroom?

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

Posted by Mick Charity on 06/02/2014 19:42:43:

If they're so f"(_)@@1N intelligent, why are they left back in the classroom?

So you want unintelligent teachers??

Russell.

[Author]

Posts