Appendix B
Comments About EE321
by Prof. Bruce Buckman
(buckman@uts.cc.utexas.edu)
Current Content of EE321
The proposed revisions in that part of the curriculum content that
now comprises EE 321 sound a bit like they were arrived at without
considering the recent changes in EE 321's content and emphasis. EE 321
now consists of basic electronic measurements, implemented using LabVIEW
and DAQ techniques. In your proposal, obviously some of that content would
go into the new EE 438 lab part and result in a revised new EE 321. We
would need to carefully plan how that is to be accomplished. What would
the lab part of 438 look like and who would teach it - - the professor in
charge of the electronics content, or ?
Some of the labs in EE321 will likely be moved into the
laboratory component of EE338. This will leave room to cover
a topic such as data acquisition from transducers at the end
of the EE321 course.
Response from Prof. Evans:
The proposed curriculum requires an advanced laboratory course.
Students can choose any one of the following courses:
- EE321 Electrical Engineering Lab I
- EE440 Microelectronics Fabrication Techniques
- EE345L Microprocessor Applications and Organization
- EE345S Real-Time Digital Signal Processing Laboratory
- EE374L Applications of Biomedical Engineering
Students would have to take the advanced laboratory course as a
pre-requisite for EE464H/K Senior Design Project.
At present, EE345L is the only other course besides EE321K and
EE338K that requires EE321. The pre-requisites for EE345L may
change to be EE438 if the proposed changes are accepted.
We really need input for EE 438. At this point, we have
not developed a list of topics for the lecture and laboratory components.
The content of the lecture depends on the changes to EE411. The current
proposed curriculum would add Laplace transforms to EE411, so about three
weeks of the EE411 material may need to move to EE338.
EE tools: Spice, Matlab, and Labview
A key advantage to LabVIEW is its extensive interfaces
to the physical world for a computer. I believe it's a mistake not to
put LabVIEW on an equal footing with PSPICE and MATLAB as a key software
tool in the curriculum. LabVIEW can do everything MATLAB can do,
LabVIEW can also do much more that MATLAB can't, and LabVIEW is
infinitely easier to work with than MATLAB. I am also concerned
about the future commitment of Prentice-Hall to support a student
edition of MATLAB. National Instruments is committed to supporting
a LabVIEW student edition.
Response from Prof. Evans:
Most EEs would use either Spice or Matlab in the workplace (some
would use both). Some would use LabVIEW. Personally, I like LabVIEW
because
- it is a gentle introduction to system-level electronic
design automation (EDA) tools
- it is a way to reinforce the key principles of hierarchy and
abstraction in the design of complex systems.
EDA tools are used heavily in by processor and embedded system
designers. That said, most designers who use EDA tools have either
MS or Ph.D. degrees. We cover EDA tool in several graduate courses
(including my Embedded Software Systems course).
But, the #2 reason above is very, very important. With Moore's Law,
designs double in complexity every 18 months. Abstraction and
hierarchy are key ways to manage complexity in the design process.
It is true that LabVIEW can do everything Matlab can do
(they are both Turing equivalent).
Depending on the situation, a textual description of an
algorithm may be more compact and natural. In other situations,
a graphical description may be more compact and natural. Neither
solves everyone's problems. I agree that knowing both approaches
is important.
Last updated 02/06/00.
Mail comments about this page to
buckman@uts.cc.utexas.edu.