[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE Re: Theory and Practic
Subject: RE Re: Theory and Practic
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 00:32:00 GMT
From: robert.michaels-at-online.sme-dot-org (Robert Michaels)
Organization: Society of Manufacturing Engineers
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Oh -- it's deja-vu -- all over again, or in this case apples
and oranges -- all over again...
As a working scientist and engineer (tho surely not uniquely
so on the list), may I attempt the following clarification:
Science and Invention. They are =not= the same. There
are many working scientists today. There are very few in-
ventors. In the 19th century this ratio was reversed.
Invention -- The fabrication of useful devices
e.g. Thomas Edison; Henry Ford
-------------------------------------------------------------
Usually the result of a half-baked idea plus more or less
random tinkering. I wasn't there, but I doubt Edison
approached the phonograph or the light bulb from a theoretical
standpoint.
Science -- The search for basic truths about the innate nature
of things -- e.g. Einstein; Maxwell
--------------------------------------------------------------
Usually the result of a thorough exploration of theory, with
the hope that it will give rise to a half-baked idea.
I wasn't there, but I doubt that Einstein concluded that
relativistic mass is proportion to velocity; or that
space and time constitute an continuum -- by random tinkering.
Science AND Invention -- Together -- e.g. Robert Oppenheimer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Virtually no reputable organization will fund a research project
if it has no theoretical grounding.
No working scientist begins any practical work until he has
thoroughly examined all that has gone before in his intended
area of investigation.
I doubt Oppenheimer (et. al.) obtained funding for the Manhattan
Project (to build 1st atom bomb) by saying "Oh, theory is really
a waste of time -- give us some U-235 and we'll just fool
around with it, see what happens".
Yet - YET - Y E T!
That is how the atom bomb got built: Supposedly Oppenheimer was
absent-mindedly squeezing a whole orange in his hand when it
stuck him -- by compressing a sub-critical ball of U-235 by
means of a spherical explosive charge, he could bring the
U-235 to critical mass. (Or so the tale is told -- I wasn't
there).
| Most every scientific advance starts |
| with a =hunch=. Real scientific |
| talent is the ability to form these |
| hunches and to recognize them when |
| they occur. (And perhaps the talent |
| to fashion a theory around them - one |
| that will get you =funding= [wink!])!
Now -- Dr. Tesla
-----------------------------------------------------------
My sense is that he was an odd-ball blend of both: His
mind was that of a scientist, but he acted like an inventor.
(A lot of his ideas were half-baked).
He did the theory and the math, but (by my reckoning) did it in
his head. He published little, because he kept much of his
work in his head. And with an inventor's impetuosity he wanted
to be dabbling in something rather than writing up a paper
on it (and it seems he lacked the staff/organizational setting
to assist him much of the time).
- - - - - - -
The bottom line is: what do you want to do -- science or
invention. They are not the same, tho they blend into
one another at various points.
Theoretically yours (tho
practically, not) in --
Detroit, USA
Robert Michaels
T> From: richard hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
T>All,
T>Tesla never formally published a theory in his lifetime!!!! He
T>published
T>virtually zero in the open literature. He was quoted a lot.
[ ... ]
T>Tesla just did! He just brought into being!
[ ... ]
T> Blind luck and intuition based on hunch is shunned as the stuff of
T>hairbrains. True I wouldn't want to engineer anything for day to day
T>use [ ... ]
T>reached its peak in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
when
T>the
T>theory became THE THING.
[ ... ]
T>Richard Hull, TCBOR