A simple mistake?

[Skywave]

Originally Posted by Biggles

I still swear by writing things down. I suppose it gives me that extra bit of confidence when you know things can go horribly wrong if you don't get it right first time.

Yes, I am aware of that and do same myself. I think it helps because when you think of an idea, (especially if it's one of those 'light bulb moments'), there is no 'external source' to judge the logic of your thoughts. When written down, you will then read what you've written much more slowly than when you had that initial flash of inspiration and (hopefully) then see the devil that lies in the detail. It's analogous to discussing your idea with someone else - as happens, obviously, here on this very forum. A.k.a "two brains are better that one".
All of which neatly ties in with the System 1 / System 2 concept.

Al.

[Phil G4SPZ]

Originally Posted by Skywave

...When written down, you will then read what you've written much more slowly than when you had that initial flash of inspiration and (hopefully) then see the devil that lies in the detail...

Absolutely. This is the reason why I have always preferred to communicate by e-mail (or in writing) rather than on the telephone. It gives you time to review what you're saying. With me, on the 'phone, I often open my mouth before my brain has become engaged (System 1 again!) and if I write/type first, I often think "whew, glad I didn't say that"! What I eventually do say is inevitably far better than the initial off-the-cuff verbal response would have been. How many times have we thought, "I wish I'd remembered to say that..."

I admire anyone with the self-discipline to keep proper notes. I have always found this difficult; it's become almost obligatory in business nowadays to take down detailed contemporaneous notes, mainly for back-covering purposes. What I do find much easier to do is to scribble in pencil on a copy of the circuit diagram which components I intend to check, what the results were, and whether I replaced it or not. Simple and brief, for example an arrow pointing to a likely waxy with the notes "?"; "leaky"; "replaced" or to a resistor saying "?"; "10% high"; "OK".

The work done can be seen at-a-glance on the circuit as the repair progresses, and even acts as an aide-memoire when you come to compose that Success Story at the end of the project! I then file away the annotated service sheet for future reference.

[Skywave]

Phil: two sub-topics spring to mind having read your above post.

1. Write it; review it; check relevancy & redundancy; check spelling / grammar; check its 'tone'. Whenever I make a post to this Forum, I always avail myself of the 'Review' facility prior to posting. Sometimes, I might choose to simply stop and not submit it. However, occasionally, even after I've 'approved' it, it becomes necessary to edit it. (But I am far from perfect! )

2. In Life, we are always learning. During the many years I spent as a Field Service Engineer doing PC maintenance around the U.K., it was standard procedure to complete a Service Report after each and every visit. The customer received a copy (signed by him / her); a copy was sent to Field Service Control; I retained one copy. On account on that distribution, it was not only professional but also necessary for one's own self-protection, to record what was done and why - with an appropriate amount of detail, dependent on the amount and nature of the work done, based upon the reported fault. I saw too many reports completed by other engineers that, on occasion, were too scant in the detail. Sometimes, that caused problems:

Manager to engineer: "Why did you change that expensive part type XYZ?"
Engineer: "Err, that was a two weeks ago: can't really remember now".
Manager: "The reported fault suggests that that part was unlikely to have been the cause of the trouble"
Engineer: "I might have changed it 'just in case'.
Manager: "Your report simply says 'Changed part XYZ'. No mention as to why and what happened after you had changed it".
- You can see where that conversation is going!

Obviously, you have to have a certain mental attitude to begin with to be thorough as in my aforesaid manner, but after many years of so doing, it simply becomes ingrained in one's psyche.

Al.

[Jon_G4MDC]

This is why the "hot shot wingers" like to get you in meetings, wind proceedings up to stupid pressure, and meanwhile, they take minutes.

They can't hope to follow your thoughts but they just write down what you say...
Say now't. They can't deal with that.

[Skywave]

Ah yes: meetings - where the minutes are taken but the hours are lost.

Al.

[Phil G4SPZ]

I like that! You may also like this:

http://www.stlqcc.org.uk/docs/meet_eng.htm

[Jon_G4MDC]

I like it all right Phil...very much.

They hated me for "ah - you must be from the Department for Maximising Non-productive Work" - fill this in , come to this meeting, go to that show. BLX

[KeithsTV]

You may also like this.

Keith

[Biggles]

There's one thing worse than a proper meeting...a video conference meeting.

[JohnBG8JMB]

"We all make mistakes."

"Yes, and I write all yours down."

JohnB

[G6Tanuki]

Originally Posted by Biggles

There's one thing worse than a proper meeting...a video conference meeting.

I made a good part of my pre-retirement income from selling videoconferencing equipment - and, just as important, teaching people how to use it.
The great thing about a videoconference is that you can *record* it [with the consent of all parties involved] - then retrieve the recordings if you ever get into a situation where one party disputes having agreed to something a year ago. Similarly, anyone who can't make the event can get a lot more from watching the recording than they ever could from reading a set of meeting-minutes.

[Videoconferences are also a great way to get 30 medical students and four consultant surgeons into a single operating-theatre to participate in a leading-edge neurosurgical operation, or to get a bunch of technicians around the world all able to see the same scope/signal-analyser trace that the guy-on-the-bench is currently seeing while trying to diagnose a fault...]

Seeing is believing.

Similarly, with the ubiquity of digital cameras/phones it's now so-easy to document things like which-wires-go-to-which-terminals on cableforms, or to 'save' the various knob- and dial-settings you were using on a 'scope while diagnosing a problem. Why take ages writing this stuff down when you can take a couple of dozen photos?

[Phil G4SPZ]

I'm really glad I hadn't lost this, as it has disappeared from the Internet.

Here's my own personal IMeetE membership certificate. It's an MS Word document, so feel free to amend it to show your own/friend's/employer's/colleague's name as you see fit!

Enjoy and display proudly in your workplace. You'll be amazed how many people you'll impress!

Phil

[Skywave]

Originally Posted by Phil G4SPZ

The concept of System 1 and System 2 is outlined in detail in the excellent 2011 book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman (Penguin Books, ISBN: 978-0374275631)

Originally Posted by Skywave

Thanks for that, Phil: I'll see if I can acquire a (printed) copy.

A copy now found and ordered.

Al.

Phil, one did titter at that! I also love those "the person named has attended a course on..." but learned ****** all.

It's an MS Word document

For those not willing to pay Microsoft it works in the free OpenOffice suite.

[Pamphonica]

This thread has triggered memories of a session with a very experienced television repairer, where he was banging his head against the wall. The output signal from an IF strip was ridiculously small, as checked on his scope. After a bit of poking around I pointed out that he was looking at the wrong beam of the scope, actually just a bit of signal leakage. One button press and all was fine. Easily done

Or my last "senior moment" when I kept pestering a friend to explain why I was seeing a "phantom" 150R apparently in the centre-tap-lead of the output transformer, where it really couldn't be. When I finally opened up the smoothing cap can I had thought was potted, there inside was, guess what - a 150R resistor put in by a previous bodger!

[emeritus]

I just had a "Homer Simpson" moment myself today! The DELL CRT monitor of the Gateway Windows 98 PC that I use for scanning, shut itself down a few minutes after switch-on, preceded by parts of the raster momentarily shifting sideways. Pressing the power button did bring it back to life for a few minutes, only to die again. Not to worry I thought, I have a spare monitor in the garage to get me going, and I can post a query on the forum later if the fault is not obvious.

Unfortunately said spare monitor was right at the back, and I had to shift wife's electric bike, a pile of wood, numerous tins of paint, lengths of steel tubing and boxes of miscellaneous "useful" stuff to get to it. Having humped it up the steps into the house I went to disconnect the old monitor, and found that a transparent A4 plastic wallet had fallen out of the bookcase above the monitor, and was neatly covering all the top ventilation slots, and that removing the folder produced a working monitor! Not a complete waste of time: at least I know that the monitor's overheating protection works, and have tidied up the garage.

[Andrew2]

I'm terrible at taking notes and keeping track of my latest project, whatever it may be. I start off well, with prototype circuit development noted and diagrams jotted and tabulated ready for the proper build later. I even keep all the 'bits used' in the project pox so I don't lose them.
This usually lasts about two days before impatience sets in and the bench becomes a tip as I just build the darned thing.

On another note, the 'DC on-off' switch on my Maplin bench PSU is a momentary action, press for on, press again for off. It has become noisy and there appears to be no de-bounce fitted, so I'll press for off but it bounces back on. It has caused me some heartache I can tell you.

[Skywave]

Like many members here, I have items of test kit that are USA in origin - typically Marconi. There have been occasions when I have been puzzled why an item appears to be dead after switch-on. Then the penny drops: the legending for the on/off toggle switch states (in small print) 'ON-OFF', where for the switch, 'UP = 'ON'.

I do understand the reasoning for that. Should something fall and hit the switch toggle and activate it, the item will be switched off. And if you are poking around in the item's innards at the time . . . .

Al.

[G6Tanuki]

The positionality of the "Big Red Switch" on the first-generation of IBM PCs and PC-XTs confused plenty of Europeans.

I instinctively consider "down-for-on" and wire toggle-switches accordingly, though these days the power 'toggle-switch' is a momentary-closure thing which toggles the behind-the-scenes PSU logic between a couple of different states.

[Biggles]

First of all apologies to G6Tanuki. I seem to have touched a raw nerve there with my comment about video conference meetings. I have found that rotary on off switches work best for anything that is portable (read; chucked in the back of the works vehicle). Toggle switches always seem to get switched on accidentally. Why do they never manage to get switched off accidentally? Push switches are the same. There's nothing more annoying than going for your favourite bit of test kit for an essential job in the middle of nowhere to find the battery flat. For this reason any test gear I build has a rotary power switch if it is likely to get knocked about. Edgewise meters seem a bit more robust as well.
Alan.