Re: engineers and scientists was [TCML] Wireless Transmission Theory

[Ben McMillen <spoonman534@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim, all,
   As an engineer AND a scientist (currently a PhD candidate and the proud recipient of two degrees in engineering) I'd like to comment that engineers make the best scientists. Yes, we do to learn, but half the learning is the doing. Every opportunity is another chance to practice the 'doing' to get to the final goal of understanding. If you're doing it right, you're getting *both* for the price of one.. 

No idea if this makes any sense, but it's always worked for me.. 

Coiling In Pittsburgh
Ben McMillen


----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla Coil Mailing List <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 12:08:07 AM
Subject: Re: engineers and scientists was [TCML] Wireless Transmission Theory


Ed 
Phillips 
wrote:
> 
Hi 
Bill,
> 
> 
Most 
engineers 
I've 
encountered 
are 
not 
like 
that 
in 
any 
way. 
They 
are 
> 
about 
physics 
and 
they 
will 
look 
at 
the 
world 
through 
the 
eyes 
of 
our 
> 
physical 
universe 
and 
not 
limit 
themselves 
to 
"any" 
theory. 
I 
of 
course 
> 
have 
met 
a 
few 
engineers 
stuck 
in 
their 
ways 
and 
nothing 
was 
going 
to 
> 
change 
them. 
But 
most 
are 
not 
like 
that. 
Don't 
stereotype 
engineers. 
> 
There 
are 
both 
engineers 
and 
physicist 
set 
in 
their 
ways 
and 
there 
are 
> 
both 
engineers 
and 
physicist 
with 
a 
brain 
to 
look 
further.
> 

I 
figure 
I'll 
throw 
my 
words 
in 
before 
Chip 
kills 
this 
off.

In 
my 
annual 
"career 
day" 
talk 
at 
my 
kid's 
schools 
I 
talk 
about 
what 
being 
an 
engineer 
is 
like.. 
and 
how 
engineers 
differ 
from 
scientists.
This 
is 
something 
I 
get 
to 
observe 
every 
day 
at 
work 
(JPL) 
and 
which 
interestingly, 
was 
also 
commented 
on 
by 
Steve 
Squyres 
in 
his 
book 
about 
the 
Mars 
Rovers.

Obviously, 
it's 
not 
a 
Manichean 
thing 
with 
one 
or 
the 
other, 
more 
of 
a 
continuum, 
but 
a 
bimodal 
one.

However.. 
Scientists 
are 
driven 
by 
wanting 
to 
understand. 
Engineers 
are 
driven 
by 
wanting 
to 
do.  
The 
classic 
scientist 
might 
do 
experiments 
to 
better 
understand, 
but 
the 
goal 
is 
the 
understanding, 
not 
the 
doing 
the 
experiments.  
The 
engineer 
strives 
to 
do 
something, 
typically 
requiring 
some 
understanding, 
but 
there 
are 
lots 
of 
engineers 
who 
work 
totally 
empirically.  
Although, 
to 
me, 
what 
made 
engineering 
engineering 
(around 
the 
time 
of 
the 
Renaissance) 
was 
the 
change 
from 
doing 
it 
as 
a 
craft 
(do 
what 
worked 
before) 
was 
the 
use 
of 
a 
theoretical 
model 
to 
guide 
what 
you 
do 
next.  
For 
instance, 
I'm 
pretty 
impressed 
by 
what 
Roman 
engineers 
did 
2000 
years 
ago 
(aqueducts, 
bridges, 
the 
Pantheon), 
but 
I'm 
not 
totally 
convinced 
it 
was 
engineering 
in 
the 
modern 
sense.  
It 
might 
have 
been 
how 
medieval 
cathedrals 
were 
built.. 
a 
collection 
of 
practical 
guidelines 
arrived 
at 
over 
many 
years 
of 
trial 
and 
error, 
without 
an 
understanding 
of 
why 
it 
works 
the 
way 
it 
does.

Consider, 
for 
instance, 
building 
an 
aqueduct 
like 
the 
Pont 
du 
Gard. 
Sure, 
the 
Romans 
were 
able 
to 
achieve 
amazing 
feats 
of 
controlling 
the 
grade 
and 
roughness 
to 
get 
the 
water 
flow 
to 
work 
right.  
But, 
did 
they 
do 
this 
by 
applying 
experience 
(empiricism), 
essentially 
relying 
on 
trial 
and 
error.  
Or, 
did 
they 
understand 
hydraulics, 
and 
have 
some 
theoretical 
basis 
for 
knowing 
why 
to 
choose 
a 
particular 
slope, 
roughness, 
and 
channel 
width, 
from 
first 
principles.

Likewise, 
consider 
the 
Pantheon 
in 
Rome: 
it's 
the 
largest 
self 
supporting 
dome 
in 
the 
world 
until 
Brunelleschi 
built 
the 
Duomo 
in 
Florence 
some 
1500 
years 
later.  
And 
it's 
still 
standing.  
An 
amazing 
feat, 
but, 
did 
they 
design 
it 
by 
analyzing 
stresses 
and 
figuring 
how 
thick 
to 
make 
the 
concrete, 
etc.  
Or, 
was 
it 
just 
built 
by 
scaling 
up 
earlier 
designs, 
and 
when 
they 
collapsed, 
making 
it 
bigger.

An 
example 
of 
trial 
and 
error 
is 
pyramid 
building.  
The 
pyramid 
of 
Zoser 
  
in 
Maidun 
collapsed 
while 
the 
outer 
casing 
was 
being 
built.  
The 
pyramid 
at 
Dashur 
was 
being 
built 
at 
the 
same 
time 
(but 
started 
some 
10-15 
years 
later), 
and 
they 
thought 
the 
collapse 
was 
due 
to 
being 
too 
steep, 
so 
they 
reduced 
the 
angle 
midway 
up, 
producing 
the 
bent 
pyramid. 
  
Later 
it 
was 
apparently 
determined 
that 
the 
problem 
was 
more 
how 
the 
courses 
of 
stone 
were 
laid 
(it 
couldn't 
resist 
the 
compressional 
loading, 
and 
essentially, 
the 
weight 
of 
the 
top 
courses 
squished 
the 
bottom 
courses 
out, 
like 
a 
watermelon 
seed 
between 
your 
fingers), 
so 
later 
designs 
essentially 
had 
the 
courses 
sloping 
rather 
than 
flat.

I 
don't 
know 
that 
pyramid 
architects 
actually 
figured 
this 
out 
by 
analyzing 
the 
forces, 
or 
by 
just 
doing 
some 
empirical 
experiments.


_______________________________________________
Tesla 
mailing 
list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla






      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla