[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: engineers and scientists was [TCML] Wireless Transmission Theory
Peter,
I almost forgot! That reply was not planned at all.. ;)
It was fairly late and I was tired when I replied..
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Terren <pterren@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla Coil Mailing List <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 7:38:09 AM
Subject: Re: engineers and scientists was [TCML] Wireless Transmission Theory
Ben,
on
my
computer
your
enclosure
of
Jim
Lux's
reply
was
1
word
per
line
giving
about
20
full
pages.
Probably
a
TCML
record.
And
in
regard
to
the
topic
and
your
multiple
degrees,
I
can
only
boast
of
dropping
out
of
physics
after
the
first
year.
Basically
I
just
do
pretty
picures.....
Peter
www.tesladownunder.com
-----
Original
Message
-----
From:
"Ben
McMillen"
<spoonman534@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
"Tesla
Coil
Mailing
List"
<tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent:
Sunday,
February
10,
2008
2:47
PM
Subject:
Re:
engineers
and
scientists
was
[TCML]
Wireless
Transmission
Theory
>
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
>
_______________________________________________
Tesla
mailing
list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla