Welp, it's over. And I survived. We'll see in about 10 weeks if it was worth it.

Overall, it was an interesting experience.

The test itself was very stringently administered. Imagine going to an airport. You stand in line for a long time. You get through the door. You make sure you have your ticket and your government issued ID out and ready to be checked. "Walk through the door please!", they say.  Hold up your belongings. Are they all in a clear ziplock bag? They'd better be, otherwise they take them away. No cellphones during liftoff. No cellphones at all, you'll get kicked off the plane in a second. Once you're ready to disembark you need to wait for the attendants to finish checking. Everything. Thoroughly.

So what did I really learn? Something quite interesting:

I no longer plan to go to graduate school. (I had talked about possibly going back in a previous post)

That's not really the subject of this post, I'd like to focus on that later, if at all. The short version is that I don't think I am capable of the things that graduate school demands, at least from students who also work full time. Studying on a nightly basis, giving up all hobbies and time with loved ones; all of these things drive me away from the idea of getting an advanced degree. It's not that I believe it wouldn't help my career; I really just am not willing to give up my quality of life in order to get that particular piece of paper at this point in my life. Who knows? Perhaps there will be a time when it is truly required of me to have an advanced degree. However, from a learning perspective I feel that I would be forced to learn just as much--if not more--starting a company; plus that would be much more fulfilling in terms of having a similar time commitment and potential payoff (i.e. if I'm going to spend all that time, why not have a company instead of a piece of paper? Both look good on a resume, right?).

So back to the test. I had been studying for a month or so, perhaps a little bit longer in name only. I borrowed a used review book from a friend:

Everyone uses it, as I'm pretty sure it's the only one out there. Want to know my personal/(possibly)professional (engineer) opinion? It was way overkill. 40 some odd chapters on every section that could possibly covered by the test. It went pretty deep about each and every topic, to the point that you might see the hardest question on the afternoon general section (the same range of topics as in the morning session, just more difficult). I think it's important to note that depending on the year the testing board might throw one curveball after another your way or they might just keep lobbing softballs in your direction. Either way, you probably won't need to learn (or re-learn) all of the material in the depth each chapter goes into with rigor.

Me? Well, I'm not allowed to tell you any details about the test itself. Our flight/test attendants were very sure to remind us over and over again that we were under non-disclosure agreements not to even talk about the test questions amongst our friends. What I believe I can say is that I enjoyed the afternoon section much more than the morning session. If you don't know about the FE, the morning is 120 multiple choice questions spanning all of the knowledge that an engineer is expected to know after four years of engineering school. I would disagree. I would counter that the morning session is 120 questions for the mechanical and civil engineers. Now, it could be they have greater breadth in their respective disciplines, and even some crossover. It could be that being an engineer other than an electrical engineer requires greater cognitive capacity. Hell, it could be that I just didn't study enough. But I'll tell you, an electrical engineer such as myself has never known that much about beams, trusses or adiabatic systems...and never will! To add insult to injury, I think the EE questions were some of the softball-like questions on the exam. Let's just say I probably had a much harder time with the mechanical/static stuff than the mechanical engineers had with electricity. Or maybe I just don't care when a beam is going to start deforming irreversibly.

The afternoon session is 60 questions in your discipline, unless you decide you enjoyed the breadth of topics covered in the morning session or your particular discipline isn't tested (BME for example). The section I decided to take was based upon electrical engineering topics, even expanding away from the typical circuits/power/E&M type questions into the DSP/communication/control disciplines (to all the NCEES people out there, this isn't information that isn't available in your lovely handbook). I definitely had to stretch my mind around some of the questions and even learn some before unseen topics while in the session. But that's what engineering is really all about, right? In the end, if I passed the FE exam, I feel like these questions were much more in the direction I would have to take for the PE exam (to get final certification).

Would I do it again? Well, no, I don't plan to (if I didn't pass). I'm glad I tried it at least once. Does that make me sound like a quitter? Maybe. But I justify it as me not needing to be certified by a board that requires such stringent knowledge of beams. Ugh. Beams. Thank goodness there are people out there that enjoy studying and working with them. And that they're certified to sign off that the beams won't in fact bend.

Much like I'm not going to say that I've been too busy to post anything for the past 2-3 months, I'm not going to say that I'm definitely going back to school to get an advanced degree. However, I've considered saying both.

Really, I've considered going back to school as soon as I started my first job and was dissatisfied. I mean, who hasn't? Aside from the fact that I was previously on a co-op cycle of (work, school, work, school, and so on), I really felt nostalgic for school; I found myself saying things like: "It's so much less work when you're in class for a few hours a day!", "I'll definitely love all those new subjects I'll be studying!", "I'll have lots of free time during the day to get things done and then study at night!" and many others. They're all complete bull of course, none of those things are true for full time grad students. In fact, school can be much harder at times. I often found myself so overloaded between (continued) work and school that I would be sleeping four hours a night; plus I'm guessing I would have been sleeping those same four hours had I not been working, the waking hours would have just been spent more effectively on my classes.

The only problem now is I can't be a full-time student.

Well, I could, but all the kinds of debt I'd get myself into would be really unrealistic for the amount I would gain from an advanced degree. Since buying and fixing up my home last winter, I have taken on some markedly adult-like responsibilities in my life. And so I began investigating options. Going back to school is not something that I take lightly, nor should anyone out there; in the event that I make it back to school in the near future, it will be a long slog through homeworks and tests and unrealistic deadlines and the such. And all for a piece of paper. Luckily I had some great advice about school/work/life balance from my former boss and mentor:

Based on my experience, I would say make sure that all of your house projects are complete before you start and don’t plan on starting any new projects until you get your degrees (both of ‘em!). Also make sure your personal life is well-organized and in good working order. Don’t take in any more dogs, cats, or other mammals. You may also need to (*gasp*) scale back your musical activities.

While he was obviously joking about certain things there (no more music??), I take his advice to heart; I've also seen similar behavior from co-workers who are also in school right now. You really have to throw yourself into studies to get the most out of it. I think my perspective now that I've been out in the working world for a while will really allow me to succeed, both in the things I have already learned and how I approach problems.

The first kind of decision I will need to make is what kind of Master's degree I would want to attain. I was actually quite surprised there was even more than one option available. The first degree I think most people think of in Electrical Engineering is an Masters of Science in Electrical Engineering (MSEE of MScEE). I already missed the boat on the BS/MS program that my alma mater offered; this was a program that allowed students to automatically segue from their undergraduate studies into an advanced degree, often taking Master's courses early to help push the amount of time spent on the MS down to 1 year. So the next option I could have done was go back to school for a Master's degree (the normal way) and then write a thesis at the completion of my studies. This would likely involve research with a faculty member and the thesis would be based around that research. I doubt this option would be possible for me, because of the aforementioned house, mortgage and "grown-up" responsibilities, up to and including my job (which I wouldn't want to give up either). Yet another option would be a "project-only" MSEE offered at some schools that would involve the same coursework as any other master's degree; however, the thesis would be replaced with a project, possibly in conjunction with day-job projects (but probably segmented in some way or another). At the programs I am looking at, this option is only allowed when working full time and going to school part time; luckily, that is one of my few options. The other interesting option is something that is called a "Master's of Engineering" (in Electrical Engineering in this case). My alma mater offers such a degree (abbreviated as "MEng") and has a streamlined course offering for engineers in my situation. The degree leans more towards mixing business and science, as many engineers do on a daily basis. In that regard, it could be a very helpful degree, in the event it imparts the necessary business acumen to get by in the hard business world. However, I question the degree and how it would be viewed in the working world once I am finished:

• Will employers view it as a lesser degree if I try to stay in the technical field?
• Will a MEng degree limit where I can go in my career?
• Do I ever want to get a PhD or am I OK with a "terminal degree" such as an MEng?
• Will I be able to learn all the technical things in a more balanced program such as the MEng?

I've also been considering which schools I would even be able to attend. Thanks to the digital age, commuting distances have been shortened to only the time it takes for light to travel down a wire. What that means for John Q Public-school-graduate such as myself is that a lot more schools are now accessible to a full time worker. And not just the University of Phoenix here either. We're talking top 50 engineering schools. Who you ask? How about:

1. Stanford
2. Georgia Tech
3. Purdue
4. University of Florida

Even those four provide a pretty heavy hitting list of top research institutions offering the course work entirely online. Sure, this might be a more difficult way to collaborate with others in your class or work on projects or communicate with the teacher; but it also means that geographical barriers are becoming less and less of an issue. If I had an online electronics store that I ran out of a shack in the backwoods of North Carolina, I could now attend the number 2 engineering school in the country just as well as someone living in Palo Alto (assuming I was accepted). So while I do have a wonderful institution and my alma mater in my backyard (CWRU), I also have more options and more specialized coursework for whatever branch of EE I would like to explore more.

So what next? I guess now I have to take the GRE and get applying (and eventually figure out how I would pay for it all...). As much as I've thought about the potential convenience of going to an online version of a school, it's applying just like any other Master's Student. So really the online programs are more like you're enrolled at the school, you just can't ever make it to class because you're sick all the time; plus the professors are nice enough to send home your schoolwork (but not in a folder like back in elementary school days).

In the coming weeks/months/years (who knows?), I'll try not to write about school plans too much. However,  think there are some issues that merit discusion on here and elsewhere (and hey, I like getting help from people responding in the comments). I'll probably write at least once about my potential area of studies (should they be similar to what I'm doing right now? Should they be more towards my interest in DSP?). I'd really love feedback from anyone that happens to read this, especially students who went back to school after being in the working world for a while. Please leave any tips or tricks you might have in the comments.

Although I've been busy working on Electricio.us lately (thereby neglecting this site), I have been able to continue listening to my local NPR station (which, like any good nerd, I love). A program the other day spoke to a local community trying to build up the economy through the arts.

I was intrigued. I had never thought of that before. Why would anyone ever try to develop an arts community first? Where are the jobs? Well folks, we have a bona fide Chicken and Egg paradox here. It really goes both ways. What happens if a community only has day jobs and no culture? What happens if you develop a thriving arts community before there are "Economic Drivers" and jobs for people moving there?  Does the absence of one element slow the growth of the other?

I would tend to think the jobs come first. And of course when I think jobs I think of technical jobs, not those silly financial jobs that got us into this mess of a recession. I mostly think of technical jobs first because I've never really experienced anything else and I've heard technical jobs can have a multiplicative effect (helping to create some of the other jobs I'm not as fond of). But what happens in locations where there are only jobs and no culture to go along with it? Who really wants to live there?

An example is contained within Eric Weiner's book, The Geography of Bliss (which I first read about at Get Rich Slowly). He is traveling the world, looking to explain why some locales are happier than others. In the midst of his travels, he goes to Qatar (one of the richest regions in the world) where he encounters a city booming with jobs (mostly for migrant workers) to fill the "need" of those rich from petrodollars. However, he notes the absence of culture and even references how the richest from that country travel the world buying up impressive art collections in a hope to obtain culture. The result is a city full of people being shuttled to and from chain restaurants and malls, without any interesting things in between. Even the history museum is filled with artifacts toil and struggle in the desert...and not much else. Because the jobs in the region are scarce, no one really wants to be there, but no one working there can really leave.

The other extreme is when a city has a strong art and culture community but is lacking in jobs. An example is New York City in the current recession. Even though the current unemployment numbers are hovering around 10.3%, people continue to move to the city. Why? Because you can't find many other places in the world with a similar art and culture scene. Where else can you find so many museums in a 10 mile radius? But when it comes to being practical? No, not so much. The fact that the unemployment is only 10.3% is likely because of the high costs associated with living in or even near the city.

So back to the original example. Would starting an arts community allow for eventual development of a thriving economy? It depends. Are there other nearby communities that can feed into this new community? Are those other communities lacking in culture or interesting events of their own, thereby necessitating people in that community to travel? Are there people in the existing community that will be benefactors to the new community? And most importantly, are there people willing to move to and develop a new arts and culture based community?

If there is a willing population, both moving to and surrounding a new (or revitalized) community, then I believe it would be possible to use arts and culture to build up a local economy. I think that it is a non-standard way to draw young and artistic people into a new place and to centralize events and gatherings; this, in turn, could help to draw people that aren't contributing to the art and cultural scene directly but want to experience and patronize it. I know that Cleveland, with excessive sprawl and thinly populated suburbs, could really benefit from a community such as this (really it will be supplementing many other creative and culturally rich regions). Although the travel required between regions is undesirable, I think creating an arts community can really help to bring people together, which is really what drives economic growth over the long term. Do I think there will ever be large corporations moving in and bringing thousands of jobs to this revitalized community? No, I don't; but that's not really the point anyway.

I'm interested to know if anyone has heard of other communities built first around cultural and artistic endeavors that later blossomed into vibrant communities. If you have ever heard of one or have an opinion about what they're trying in Cleveland, please leave a note in the comments.

It wasn't just today. It wasn't really the day last week when I registered my new domain name. It was pretty soon after starting this blog that I realized how much more powerful having a website with multiple contributors to keep a consistent flow of information. "Welcome to the party!", right? I realize there are a lot of other sites that take advantage of this idea. I didn't think of it earlier though so here's my chance. And here's your chance too.

I am now on the hunt for the most articulate and technically proficient EEs and quasi-EEs out there. I plan to use this new website as a warehouse for important electrical engineering knowledge I wish I always had. I still wish I have it, because it can be very hard to keep track of (ever searched through that old pile of industry magazines? Yeah, me neither). Sure, there are sites out there like EDN and EETimes that have some spectacular writers and some interesting insight into the industry; however, I have always felt their hands were tied by a business model built upon advertising revenues that also might happen to maybe, possibly, sometimes on the harvest moon, when the winds are blowing right...influence the articles (at least in terms of what is written about). Maybe not, but it feels that way. Moreover, it feels like there is less technical content on those sites than there used to be. It's understandable, the recession is kicking everyone's butt, and it's not taking it easy on the publishing industry. But the point remains, I want a place where I can consistently go to for up to date information about skills and techniques and I want to be able to understand it. I want it to be written by the top engineers and scientists out there and I want it to be in a format that is instantly applicable and useful.

As for ChrisGammell.com, I don't really plan on changing too much. I will still write articles somewhere between technical and non-technical and try to post as often as I can. However, I think for my long term writing, I need to be part of a site that is on neutral ground and with a community built around it. I, like many in my generation, was raised working in teams and I think this will be the best format to help disseminate knowledge to others in the future.

If you are interested in contributing to a site such as this, please feel free to contact me and let me know what you would like to contribute. If you have a suggestion for the new site please leave a note in the comments below. I always appreciate feedback (even negative feedback! heh).

So let's see, I told you my plans, I explained why I think they are important to me and others, I explained what would (or would not) happen to this site and I suggested you contact me if you're interested in joining. Am I forgetting something?

Ah yes. The new site and community I started is called Electricio.us. I hope you like it.

Last evening I attended a talk from Dr. Larry Viterna, director of the Great Lakes Energy Institute (GLEI), titled "Wind Energy Technology and Its Adoption by Industry and the Public". It was hosted by the Cleveland IEEE, the Case Student chapter of IEEE and the EECS department of Case and it was spectacular.

Let me tell you, even though I was excited from the energy in the room at Sustainable Cleveland 2019 summit last week, this event really topped it. Perhaps it was just my perception. I was trying to explain why this was a big deal to me to my girlfriend later in the evening and this is what I came up with:

Even though the Sustainable Cleveland 2019 summit was full of people with energy and great ideas, this was different. This was a group of people all in the same room that spoke the technical language, that knew or were involved in the research behind some of the technologies being discussed...and were still super excited about sitting there. It gave me hope when I had been previously disappointed that there weren't more engineers at the summit.

Not only that, it was one of those events where the content was things you've never heard before because the person telling them to you discovered them. As an example, Dr. Viterna told us of an empirical method he devised while at NASA back in the late 70s/early 80s that empirically defined when a wind turbine would stall out. Prior to that point, estimations had all been based on a 2D model of the turbine blades; past a certain amount of power you cannot accurately predict when a fixed-blade turbine will stall. He presented at a conference but nothing came of it (his words were that he was laughed off stage, though I hardly believe that). It was only years later that he discovered his method was being used regularly in the explanation of how and when wind turbines would stall out; that data can then be used to control the power output of the turbine, especially useful in high wind situation (so it doesn't bust into a million pieces). Where else would I find that kind of personal content in a talk?

While I could go on from my notes about the detailed talk that Dr. Viterna gave, I will instead bullet point some of my favorite facts and notes:

1. Denmark decided in the early 80s to move towards a completely renewable energy situation (even after oil prices dropped) because they were importing up to 60% of their oil at the time and were particularly hard hit by the oil crisis of the late 70s. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?)
2. The US just passed all other countries in terms of wind energy capacity. We also have a growth rate per year in wind energy capacity of 45% compared to a global average 25%.
3. A wind turbine is equally effective with two blades or three as long as the same amount of area is swept by the blades; convention is currently 3 blades as pioneered by companies in Denmark.
4. Power generated by a turbine is proportional to the area covered by the blades and also proportional to the cube of the velocity of the wind. So big blades are good, but big gusts of wind are better.
5. The limiting factor of wind turbines currently is the drive train assembly and the stresses that are placed on it. The fluid dynamics (of the wind) around a turbine system and the extreme stresses it places on the turbine are beginning to limit the overall power that can be converted by a turbine without catastrophic failure (see video above).
6. The first mulit-megawatt turbine was first pioneered in the late 70s into the early 80s by NASA. No turbine had been able to match the power output up until a few years ago.
7. While wind energy could never compete on a cost basis with dirty coal (even with subsidies), the relative costs are close to the costs of new, regulated, "clean coal" plants (which don't yet exist).

I was very lucky to be in that room with 50 or so other engineers last night to hear Dr. Viterna speak. I also had the opportunity to personally pitch the idea to him about the Laboratories for Advanced Energy Commercialization (LAEC or "Lake"); he indicated that something would need to be in place, though he didn't mention whether LAEC would specifically be viable. He also mentioned that GLEI is still quite young and that there is a lot of development that needs to be done on the research side of things to really get money flowing through the region and bring in more research companies.

Cleveland, Case and the whole community is lucky to have Dr. Viterna heading up the GLEI. I belive his leadership and his passion for energy will really help drive development in the energy arena and help boost Cleveland to the forefront of the advanced energy research scene. Please leave any thoughts you might have in the comments, including other facts about wind energy or local research I may have missed.