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