Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
Few people are born with a profound ability to understand things. Im
certainly not one of them. Ive learned a lot of things especially about how to use the intelligence I have. One thing Ive learned is that people any people, anywhere, any time have great difficulty getting past what they believe to be true. I know it, so it must be true. Dont disturb my complacency. Anyone with a disruptive point of view is usually rejected as a idiot (qv, Swifts observation about a confederacy of dunces). Unless, of course, the person is a perceived expert. If anything Ive said had been voiced by Doctor Floyd Toole, it would have been accepted as gospel by most of this group. The principle that truth is truth, regardless of who says it, is something most people cannot understand. Nor is the principle that one should understand //why// they believe or disbelieve something, and be willing to periodically reconsider their beliefs. The following is about how I solved a serious problem that stymied people who knew more than I did. My first real engineering job was with Bendix Field Engineering. Bendix was a principal contractor for NASAs Spaceflight Tracking and Data-acquisition Network (STDN or STADAN). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacec...sition_Network STDN used klystron transmitters to communicate with satellites and space probes. These put out several kilowatts at around 2GHz. A klystron is a traveling-wave tube, with multiple high-Q resonant cavities. These have to be correctly tuned to get full power over a useful bandwidth. A single band wasnt enough to cover all the frequencies NASA used. Retuning was often needed. Retuning wasnt horribly difficult. You inserted a tuning wrench to rewind a cavity to its start position. * Then, consulting a list of settings, you turned the wrench to a particular reading on a turns counter. The process was repeated for each cavity. * There was a lot of backlash when adjusting a cavity. The major difficulty wasnt the wrenching around, but the fact that most of the transmitters were in the antennas wheelhouses. You had to climb a hundred feet or more, sometimes in 60mph winds. The solution was a motorized tuner. You pressed a button for the desired band on a control panel in the station, and the tuner did the screwing and unscrewing, while you enjoyed a cup o hot cocoa. (Actually, just a few sips, because it worked quickly.) The klystrons came from Varian, whod already aligned them for the bands NASA used. After the tube was installed, a step-motor system was attached, and we dialed in the necessary turns values for each cavity, for each band. Simple, ncest pas? No way. It didnt work. The klystrons didnt meet spec. They werent even close. The bandwidth was usually too narrow, and the overall gain was too low for reliable operation. The klystrons were measured much as youd measure a speakers response. A swept-frequency signal was applied to the input, and the output went to a oscilloscope sweeping in sync. An absorption wavemeter on the input produced dips in the displayed response, so we knew where we were, frequency-wise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_wavemeter I and my co-worker a buck-toothed dullard -- killed ourselves trying to get flat response at Varians settings. We couldnt. We once spent a whole day on just one channel, and got it kinda/sorta/maybe flat. We called in more-experienced engineers, and none of them could figure out what was wrong. As the installation deadline approached, it was decided to install the klystrons and see what happened in the field. We had no better luck. At Cape Canaveral, we had to get NASAs dispensation for some pretty wretched alignments, which were barely usable. Note that //many// more-experienced people quite failed to solve the problem which turned out to be ludicrously simple. I was the one who solved it, because I asked good questions. The first was Why dont we talk to Varian? * I called and spoke with Dr Goldfinger. (Yes, really.) Why arent we getting flat response? Are you certain youre measuring the tubes correctly? Oh, we are. How do you know? We cheat. He was joking about the fact that Varian had been measuring klystrons for 30 years, and its test system had been calibrated to a gnats whisker. So the problem must be with our test setup. The next question was -- Whats the likely problem? The test scope needed a DC signal representing the amplitude of the klystrons RF output. This was obtained by attaching an HP point-contact detector to an RF coupler in the transmitter cabinet. It turned out these detectors were utter crap. Not only did some of them not work at all, but their output wasnt flat, and varied from sample to sample. This caused faulty measurements that led to our inability to align the klystons. I suggested against some objection that we use the HP thermocouple power meter installed in the transmitter cabinet. The thermocouple has a broad, basically flat response. And no surprise when measured with the thermocouple, the klystrons met spec right out of the box. (A few channels benefited from minor touchups, which took less than a minute.) The irony is that, had we installed the klystrons without measuring them, there would have been no problem. I remember an engineer yanking one of the HP detectors off the coupler, and griping Its no good. The answer was staring me and him right in the face, but neither of us saw it, because we assumed (theres that word!) there were only two types of detectors working perfectly, and not working at all. The thought that there might be an intermediate state grossly non-flat response didnt cross our minds. Need I say that I learned a great deal from this? Case proven, and closed. * I suspect no one else did, because they were afraid of looking stupid -- the A man doesnt ask for directions attitude. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... snip extensive self-back-patting Need I say that I learned a great deal from this? Case proven, and closed. Mind closed. You're ignorant insistence that you're always right is a severe learning disability. It's also both a character defect and a personality defect. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"None" wrote in message news "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... snip extensive self-back-patting Need I say that I learned a great deal from this? Case proven, and closed. Mind closed. You're ignorant insistence that you're always right is a severe learning disability. It's also both a character defect and a personality defect. Welcome to my world Wil. I have had a lot of those experiences in the Air Force with new discoveries in navigation, correcting some text books, writing others and straightening out some misconceptions. Also in film and video work, taking Super 8 Sound to its extremes and getting published a few times. You know my audio theories about stereo, but that is not the point. The point is that if you discover something that others have not, they will be defensive about the whole thing - your sanity, your intelligence, your right to be in the room. They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round, they all laughed when Edison recorded sound, they all laughed at Ford and his Lizzie, Hershey and his chocolate bar.... You probably knew this would happen when you wrote the above. And there is None, right on schedule. You probably also knew that I would jump in here. So here I am, and that is pretty much all I have to say. You study a problem for months, years, and when you finally come up with a solution the others who have not been studying it think you're nuts because it isn't how they thought it worked before. The phenomenon was all summed up by a man named Arthur Schopenhauer: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer Gary Eickmeier |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... The phenomenon was all summed up by a man named Arthur Schopenhauer: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is ridiculed and violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part of it. And when there is opposition, it's rarely violent. It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the way you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are somehow evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"None" wrote in message
... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is ridiculed and violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part of it. And when there is opposition, it's rarely violent. He's using "violent" metaphorically. As when None violently opposes the truthful things I say. It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the way you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are somehow evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks. Has it ever occurred to you that it serves the purpose of (hopefully) making people think about what they believe, and why? Oh, wait... You don't think. It turns out this observation is actually a paraphrase of what Schopenhauer actually said: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/att...s-of-truth.897 "To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... "None" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is ridiculed and violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part of it. And when there is opposition, it's rarely violent. He's using "violent" metaphorically. As when None violently opposes the truthful things I say. If I opposed you violently, you'd know about it. But unlike you, I have no intention of taking anything to real life with you. People who try to go RL with Usenet disagreements (as you seem to want to do) are frequently unhinged. It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the way you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are somehow evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks. Has it ever occurred to you that it serves the purpose of (hopefully) making people think about what they believe, and why? Oh, wait... You don't think. It turns out this observation is actually a paraphrase of what Schopenhauer actually said: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/att...s-of-truth.897 "To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial." Yeah, that's likely why cranks misquote him. They're probably just parroting other cranks with cut-and-paste, anyway. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
William -
THAT was interesting! I printed out the whole thing to study and show my wife, from whom the quote I wrote came. I studied him just a smidge on the internet, to learn who he was and what sort of things he wrote. I think he was a bit of a humorist in his writings, right? Too bad we get just one go-around, and all that is left is our writings or creations. If you are so fortunate to have left something! And maybe our young-uns. Happy fathers day to all. Gary PS I don't think Floyd is a PhD in anything - but he sure left a body of work! "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "None" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Facile and glib, but nonsense. Certainly, not all truth is ridiculed and violently opposed. That's the most nonsensical part of it. And when there is opposition, it's rarely violent. He's using "violent" metaphorically. As when None violently opposes the truthful things I say. It's a convenient but non-too-clever catch phrase, and very popular with cranks, of course. Perhaps the most ridiculous usage is the way you have used it: the notion that ridicule and opposition are somehow evidence of truth. That's probably why it's so popular with cranks. Has it ever occurred to you that it serves the purpose of (hopefully) making people think about what they believe, and why? Oh, wait... You don't think. It turns out this observation is actually a paraphrase of what Schopenhauer actually said: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/att...s-of-truth.897 "To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial." |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
... You study a problem for months, years, and when you finally come up with a solution the others who have not been studying it think you're nuts because it isn't how they thought it worked before. The phenomenon was all summed up by Arthur Schopenhauer: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. It's interesting you mention Schopenhauer, as I'm reading about him. He was not at all modest, claiming that "The World as Will and Representation" held the correct answer to all philosophical questions. This book was ignored, and when not ignored, vehemently criticized. But Schopenhauer lived to see his work praised and valued. I /do not/ expect my tombstone to read "He finally convinced humanity of its failure to use its intelligence well." |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"None" wrote in message
news Mind closed. You're ignorant insistence that you're always right is a severe learning disability. It's also both a character defect and a personality defect. I have often said that I am usually right. (Which I am.) I have never, ever said I was always right. Why do you insist on repeating this lie? |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... "None" wrote in message news Mind closed. You're ignorant insistence that you're always right is a severe learning disability. It's also both a character defect and a personality defect. I have often said that I am usually right. (Which I am.) I have never, ever said I was always right. Why do you insist on repeating this lie? Hehe. You've said "always", although you've usually qualified it with "(almost)" or "/almost/". The "almost" is generally (but not always) parenthetical, as if it pains you to include it. "Sorry, but I am always always right." -- William Sommerwerck, 2013-06-17, in this newsgroup. Never, ever??? "Why do you insist on repeating this lie?" Hehe. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... snipping an interesting story worth reading for those inclined Thanks for posting that - I enjoyed that. For the detractors - here's something to consider. When your IQ is well into the top 1% of the population, and you spend your life studying, researching and, well, proving to yourself what is what you will end up in a position where you ARE usually right, or find the answer first, or are closer than anyone else around you. Even when you're not right it's usually because you didn't entirely understand the question or problem, or you're working with 'accepted' data which turns out to be wrong (which is why you tend to question everything). I'm close to that level myself, close enough to make a nice living as the go-to guy for all the really hard problems. I've had the privilege a working with a few of those guys over the years - they can be difficult to understand and can almost sound like an idiot or a lunatic until you can get far enough in to understand what they're saying. And despite the personality issues that most of them had I was very glad to have a chance to work with them and learn from them. Moral of the story is: don't worry about it :-) Sean |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... snipping an interesting story worth reading for those inclined Thanks for posting that - I enjoyed that. I'm close to that level myself, close enough to make a nice living as the go-to guy for all the really hard problems. That's great to hear! In addition to "asking good questions", what other useful approaches to problem-solving have you found? |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... snipping an interesting story worth reading for those inclined Thanks for posting that - I enjoyed that. I'm close to that level myself, close enough to make a nice living as the go-to guy for all the really hard problems. That's great to hear! In addition to "asking good questions", what other useful approaches to problem-solving have you found? Number one skill: develop a pedantic to nigh on fanatical desire to separate facts from speculation. Facts are rare precious gems because once proven they can be relied on. Everything else is speculation with various weights of probability. Something may be highly probable to the point that it's safe to move forward on the assumption that it's true, but I still won't call it a fact. Having assessed what is known and what we suspect, look for something which can be easily tested and can rule in or out a number of other possibilities - basically to figure out what area does the problem live. You can figure out what the positive and negative results might be, and end up with something completely unexpected that's not consistent with any theory. That's OK - a result is a result - it's more data to factor into the next round of tests. Sometimes you get an 'impossible' result that makes no sense at all - when you find yourself saying 'that can't be right', it means you've built your understanding on some bad data somewhere, and you have to find it (much like your detectors). That works OK for systems. Given patience and thoroughness you can debug anything from a car to a nuclear reactor. It's just a matter of understanding the system well enough to figure out the right things to check. Systems involving people are much more difficult. When I've been sent to an unhappy customer site where we were in real trouble, I have to take time to assess all of the players and their feelings and opinions. Then I revert to my military training: find the center of resistance and try to move it. There's always one person who is sort of the focal point of negative perception, and if you can swing that person the rest will fall in line, or at least become a lot easier to deal with. Sean |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:15:19 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:
[ a long story ] Thanks for writing all of that. It reflects much of my own experiences as well, both when interacting with other people, people in general, and when doing things alone. One thing Ive learned is that people any people, anywhere, any time have great difficulty getting past what they believe to be true. I know it, so it must be true. Dont disturb my complacency. People are hugely dogmatic. And by that, I mean "things that are commonly held to be true without actual support in fact" (or something like that). It's obvious that philosophies and religions depend on this, but dogma can also be found in the sciences and engineering, unfortunately, even though these areas need to be free of it. Some years ago, I was reading the day's news of science, and there was a story about how researchers in psychology found that about 2/3 of people will follow along with other people around them, rather than do what they think or feel is right. I think in a healthy culture, this is a good default behavior, but in today's world (and by that, I mean at least the last 2000 years prevents many positive changes. When I was young, I did well in school and thought I knew things. Later, I was surprised at how many things I learned in school and accepted as The Truth turned out to be wrong. Sometimes that was because new scientific research updated human knowledge, but other times it was because my teachers weren't as smart as everyone assumed, and sometimes because they were required to pass on what the NY State Board of Regents required them to. It is commonly said that small children are like sponges for information, but they don't have a mature ability to discern truth vs. fiction. And no part of my formal education, including required science courses at Caltech, covered that subject. Anyone with a disruptive point of view is usually rejected as a idiot Again, in a healthy culture, that behavior is actually right. And unless no one shows them otherwise, people assume their culture is correct. "Everyone knows that ...." and "of course ..." have become red flags for me because so often, I noticed that the words that follow are simply not true. My first real engineering job was with Bendix Field Engineering. Bendix was a principal contractor for NASAs Spaceflight Tracking and Data-acquisition Network (STDN or STADAN). One of my first real jobs was working for NASA at JPL, and although it was a very short job, I think it affected my attitude about what constitutes "good engineering" in a very positive way. One of the reasons I love engineering is that it keeps me watching myself, checking my thinking, and asking myself, "Am I really sure I got this right?" Years ago, Richard Feynman did a special filmed interview in which he passed on some of his ideas about what makes good science and good scientists because he was very concerned about dogma and improper thinking in science. He said that when he was young, some people taught him about those things, and he wanted to pass on something to future generations. Sadly, I can never find that on YouTube anymore when I look for it. There are many other Feynman videos, but not that one. Maybe this is another example of a dogmatic culture not wanting to consider it's own weaknesses. So maybe I can summarize just a little, along with my own ideas: 1. Good scientists never believe things just because other people do. 2. Good scientists are never sure of anything, and never reach conclusions. 3. Good scientists are curious and open-minded. He explained this as a basis for good scientific methods and thought. The way I think of it is that a good scientific method involves both curious open-mindedness and discernment (telling what is true and real). All that may seem like a digression because the original topic was on engineering, but in my mind, the same basic attitude is just what you need to solve engineering problems, prevent yourself from getting into trouble, and getting out of it. I and my co-worker a buck-toothed dullard -- killed ourselves trying to get flat response at Varians settings. We couldnt. We once spent a whole day on just one channel, and got it kinda/sorta/maybe flat. We called in more-experienced engineers, and none of them could figure out what was wrong. If you have good engineers, it really helps to have more people look at it. Some "stupid mistakes" can be revealed more easily from another perspective. Note that //many// more-experienced people quite failed to solve the problem which turned out to be ludicrously simple. I was the one who solved it, because I asked good questions. That's it! You have to be like a small child and keep asking, "Why?" And keeep asking, "What are my assumptions?" * I suspect no one else did, because they were afraid of looking stupid -- the A man doesnt ask for directions attitude. Yes, it's very sad. One thing about Richard Feynman as compared to other people I met at Caltech (faculty, other staff, and students) is that he had a lot less "ego"! The others mostly had "density to match their IQ", in my opinion, which limited everything. When a professor said something in class no one understood, almost no one stopped him to ask a question, in fear that it would make them look stupid. And when I asked questions, I could hear other students in the class snicker at me. (When that happened in Feynman's classroom, he defended me. How cool.) Caltech was a bad learning environment for me and I'm glad I got out of there, but I'm sure there are other "places of learning" that are just as bad, and that's what many professional engineers go through. I wrote a lot about this because in my opinion, this is an important basic issue in the human experience, and in the American scientific and engineering cultures. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
On 6/15/2014 8:21 PM, Jay Ts wrote:
...gigantic snip... Yes, it's very sad. One thing about Richard Feynman as compared to other people I met at Caltech (faculty, other staff, and students) is that he had a lot less "ego"! The others mostly had "density to match their IQ", in my opinion, which limited everything. When a professor said something in class no one understood, almost no one stopped him to ask a question, in fear that it would make them look stupid. And when I asked questions, I could hear other students in the class snicker at me. (When that happened in Feynman's classroom, he defended me. How cool.) Caltech was a bad learning environment for me and I'm glad I got out of there, but I'm sure there are other "places of learning" that are just as bad, and that's what many professional engineers go through. I wrote a lot about this because in my opinion, this is an important basic issue in the human experience, and in the American scientific and engineering cultures. One would hope that we've all had at least one such questioning moment in our careers that worked out for the best. I've been fortunate to have had a few. I've been retired for something like a dozen years, so it's water under the bridge for me. Anyway, one of the first for me was when an expert in the field told me the quest for liquid epitaxial InGaAsP on InP was thermodynamically imposable. I did it, though my PhD supervisors got most of the credit. [{( Um, yes, you can Google that. )}] Ah but it did wonders for my credibility as an experimentalist. G [IMHO] The bottom line is to not talk yourself out of the experiment BUT also know when to quit. However, that's not always an easy line to define. [ Oh yes (reality check) ...I've pushed a few lines too far. ] == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"Ron C" wrote in message
... On 6/15/2014 8:21 PM, Jay Ts wrote: ...gigantic snip... Yes, it's very sad. One thing about Richard Feynman as compared to other people I met at Caltech (faculty, other staff, and students) is that he had a lot less "ego"! The others mostly had "density to match their IQ", in my opinion, which limited everything. When a professor said something in class no one understood, almost no one stopped him to ask a question, in fear that it would make them look stupid. And when I asked questions, I could hear other students in the class snicker at me. (When that happened in Feynman's classroom, he defended me. How cool.) I attended Caltech, but it was a few years after Feynman stopped teaching. You were fortunate. (I was in Ricketts, by the way.) Caltech was a bad learning environment for me and I'm glad I got out of there, but I'm sure there are other "places of learning" that are just as bad, and that's what many professional engineers go through. Perhaps, but my EE came from the University of Maryland, and I had many fine instructors. One of them was, by a narrow margin, the best instructor I've ever had in anything. Perhaps the biggest problem of learning anything is "grasping" it. (I can't think of another word.) Having something explained to you is not the same as thinking it through on your own. When you work through problems (particularly in math), you start truly understanding the material. One of the first [questioning moments] for me was when an expert in the field told me the quest for liquid epitaxial InGaAsP on InP was thermodynamically imposable. I did it, though my PhD supervisors got most of the credit. Ah, but it did wonders for my credibility as an experimentalist. G Am I correct in assuming that, instead of trying to figure out a priori what would work, you performed "little" experiments to get a better grasp of what might and might not be possible? (Dr Alan Hill took that approach in developing the first wide-range plasma loudspeaker.) [IMHO] The bottom line is to not talk yourself out of the experiment BUT also know when to quit. However, that's not always an easy line to define. [ Oh yes (reality check) ...I've pushed a few lines too far. ] Many years ago I asked a friend why it wouldn't be possible to grow single-crystal diamond in the same way silicon is deposited on integrated circuits. He asked a friend, who said the thermodynamics for carbon did not work the way those for silicon did. Polycrystalline diamond is commonly applied to many surfaces (such as speaker cones), of course. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
On 6/16/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Ron C" wrote in message ... On 6/15/2014 8:21 PM, Jay Ts wrote: ...gigantic snip... Yes, it's very sad. One thing about Richard Feynman as compared to other people I met at Caltech (faculty, other staff, and students) is that he had a lot less "ego"! The others mostly had "density to match their IQ", in my opinion, which limited everything. When a professor said something in class no one understood, almost no one stopped him to ask a question, in fear that it would make them look stupid. And when I asked questions, I could hear other students in the class snicker at me. (When that happened in Feynman's classroom, he defended me. How cool.) I attended Caltech, but it was a few years after Feynman stopped teaching. You were fortunate. (I was in Ricketts, by the way.) Caltech was a bad learning environment for me and I'm glad I got out of there, but I'm sure there are other "places of learning" that are just as bad, and that's what many professional engineers go through. Perhaps, but my EE came from the University of Maryland, and I had many fine instructors. One of them was, by a narrow margin, the best instructor I've ever had in anything. Perhaps the biggest problem of learning anything is "grasping" it. (I can't think of another word.) Having something explained to you is not the same as thinking it through on your own. When you work through problems (particularly in math), you start truly understanding the material. One of the first [questioning moments] for me was when an expert in the field told me the quest for liquid epitaxial InGaAsP on InP was thermodynamically imposable. I did it, though my PhD supervisors got most of the credit. Ah, but it did wonders for my credibility as an experimentalist. G Am I correct in assuming that, instead of trying to figure out a priori what would work, you performed "little" experiments to get a better grasp of what might and might not be possible? (Dr Alan Hill took that approach in developing the first wide-range plasma loudspeaker.) It was a long time ago and I've forgotten details of the progression, but I spent years working on the GaAs/AlGaAs system and in turn moved to InP when substrates became available. I do recall working out pseudoternary phase diagrams and doing X-ray measurements of lattice constants, photoluminescence, etc. [IMHO] The bottom line is to not talk yourself out of the experiment BUT also know when to quit. However, that's not always an easy line to define. [ Oh yes (reality check) ...I've pushed a few lines too far. ] Many years ago I asked a friend why it wouldn't be possible to grow single-crystal diamond in the same way silicon is deposited on integrated circuits. He asked a friend, who said the thermodynamics for carbon did not work the way those for silicon did. Polycrystalline diamond is commonly applied to many surfaces (such as speaker cones), of course. There was a segment about growing diamonds on NOVA scienceNOW a few years ago. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/ar...-diamonds.html Seems the video of is no longer available, but the Q/A is still the http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/butler-diamonds.html == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"Jay Ts" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:15:19 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote: [a long story] It's called a "megillah". Thanks for writing all of that. It reflects much of my own experiences as well, both when interacting with other people, people in general, and when doing things alone. I never believed I was alone in this, and am grateful for the confirmation. Some years ago, I was reading the day's news of science, and there was a story about how researchers in psychology found that about 2/3 of people will follow along with other people around them, rather than do what they think or feel is right. I think in a healthy culture, this is a good default behavior, but in today's world (and by that, I mean at least the last 2000 years prevents many positive changes. Ever noticed how much our country is like the Roman Empire? Given that humans are social animals, it's to be expected. Some of us are fortunate enough to be sufficiently asocial not to be easily influenced. One of the reasons I love engineering is that it keeps me watching myself, checking my thinking, and asking myself, "Am I really sure I got this right?" Heck, that applies to life! 1. Good scientists never believe things just because other people do. 2. Good scientists are never sure of anything, and never reach conclusions. 3. Good scientists are curious and open-minded. I would add to that... There is a difference between being open-minded and empty-headed. All that may seem like a digression because the original topic was on engineering, but in my mind, the same basic attitude is just what you need to solve engineering problems, prevent yourself from getting into trouble, and getting out of it. I don't see a fundamental difference between science and engineering. In science, you're trying to figure out how things work. In engineering, how to get things to work. Note that //many// more-experienced people quite failed to solve the problem which turned out to be ludicrously simple. I was the one who solved it, because I asked good questions. That's it! You have to be like a small child and keep asking, "Why?" And keep asking, "What are my assumptions?" It's so easy to get bitten in the assumptions. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
I'm grateful for the intelligent contributions that have been made to this
discussion. As I now have confirmation that I'm not a total idiot, and there are other sensible people out there, I will permanently stop starting arguments about controversial subjects. And if I show the least tendency to do so, kick me hard. The following might be of use... Two Good Sources of Inspiration 1: The bathroom is one of the best sources of problem-solving inspiration. One need only approach the throne, or step into the shower, for ideas to begin flowing, sometimes as freely as the water. Just this morning, I came up with an excellent solution to a plot problem with a short story I'm working on. 2: Another source of inspiration is to stop working. This is the Alton Brown approach -- "Just walk away." You can't force inspiration. When you halt conscious thought, the unconscious sometimes takes over and presents you with a valuable insight. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"Jeff Henig" wrote in message ... Very good points. I do my best to perfect my craft by working through solutions step-by-step, but sometimes this is what it takes. -- ---Jeff Have you noticed that your brain will keep working under cover on a problem that you haven't solved yet if you just give it time? Better to take breaks, do something else, seemingly forget about it for a while, then when you go back the answer will be staring you in the face. Kind of like a computer working in the background. Just takes time. Gary |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:55:07 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Have you noticed that your brain will keep working under cover on a problem that you haven't solved yet if you just give it time? The first time I ever heard of this was when I was looking through some old (1950s) issues of Scientific American. There was an article on just this subject by a European mathematician. He told a story of how he was stumped by a problem he was trying to solve, and the solution came to him just as he was stepping onto a train. I've noticed the same kind of thing in myself many times, and I assume the brain is capable of running background processes subconsciously. It seems to work for me unless my attention is taken away by something that saturates my senses or thought processes, requiring me to look at the problem again to "reload". In the 1950s, this effect would have seemed very mysterious to anyone, but today, scientists are studying brain activity in real time (or thereabouts) with brain scanners. Now it is understood that our brains are active all of the time, and we are consciously aware of only a tiny bit of the total activity. That old thing about, "We use only 3% of our brains" was never true, although something like that is true of the amount of our brain activity we are conscious of. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
Few people are born with a profound ability to understand things. Im certainly not one of them. Ive learned a lot of things especially about how to use the intelligence I have. One thing Ive learned is that people any people, anywhere, any time have great difficulty getting past what they believe to be true. I know it, so it must be true. Dont disturb my complacency. Anyone with a disruptive point of view is usually rejected as a idiot (qv, Swifts observation about a confederacy of dunces). Unless, of course, the person is a perceived expert. If anything Ive said had been voiced by Doctor Floyd Toole, it would have been accepted as gospel by most of this group. The principle that truth is truth, regardless of who says it, is something most people cannot understand. Nor is the principle that one should understand //why// they believe or disbelieve something, and be willing to periodically reconsider their beliefs. The following is about how I solved a serious problem that stymied people who knew more than I did. My first real engineering job was with Bendix Field Engineering. Bendix was a principal contractor for NASAs Spaceflight Tracking and Data-acquisition Network (STDN or STADAN). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacec...sition_Network STDN used klystron transmitters to communicate with satellites and space probes. These put out several kilowatts at around 2GHz. A klystron is a traveling-wave tube, with multiple high-Q resonant cavities. These have to be correctly tuned to get full power over a useful bandwidth. A single band wasnt enough to cover all the frequencies NASA used. Retuning was often needed. Retuning wasnt Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975 . Wasn't my job. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg Greg |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"gregz" wrote in message
... Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975. Wasn't my job. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg Do you remember the control panel with the six channel buttons across the bottom? It's not visible in this shot. Odd coincidence... This photo was taken with a full-frame fisheye. I carried an Olympus OM at the time, and often took shots with such a lens. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
"gregz" wrote in message ... Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975. Wasn't my job. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg Do you remember the control panel with the six channel buttons across the bottom? It's not visible in this shot. Odd coincidence... This photo was taken with a full-frame fisheye. I carried an Olympus OM at the time, and often took shots with such a lens. I don't remember panel. I do remember them talking about spending time tuning up there. The transfer scan could have been better. I took the shot with pentax fixed focus fisheye. Greg |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
"gregz" wrote in message ... Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975. Wasn't my job. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg Do you remember the control panel with the six channel buttons across the bottom? It's not visible in this shot. Odd coincidence... This photo was taken with a full-frame fisheye. I carried an Olympus OM at the time, and often took shots with such a lens. Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel, but reinstalled after some station updating. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg Greg |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
gregz wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: "gregz" wrote in message ... Not too clear, me sitting in front of transmitter control, 1975. Wasn't my job. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/18.jpg Do you remember the control panel with the six channel buttons across the bottom? It's not visible in this shot. Odd coincidence... This photo was taken with a full-frame fisheye. I carried an Olympus OM at the time, and often took shots with such a lens. Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel, but reinstalled after some station updating. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg Greg One more. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldston...onsole1969.jpg Greg |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"gregz" wrote in message
... One more. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldston...onsole1969.jpg That looks contemporary -- not much newer than the step tuner. Note that the panel has controls to monitor the tube's beam current and set the anode voltage. There are also meters to show the filament current. If it recall correctly, if the filament wasn't hot enough, the cathode would be stripped. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"gregz" wrote in message
... Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel, but reinstalled after some station updating. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg Ar, matey, that be it. I will save a copy. Thanks! I assume this is a recent photo. (Note the modern piece of test equipment at the top.) The system is still in use after 40 years! |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg Ar, matey, that be it. I will save a copy. Thanks! I assume this is a recent photo. (Note the modern piece of test equipment at the top.) The system is still in use after 40 years! that "modern piece of test equipment" looks like a TEK TAS 475. so it depends on your definition of "modern" Mark |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
"gregz" wrote in message ... Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel, but reinstalled after some station updating. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg Ar, matey, that be it. I will save a copy. Thanks! I assume this is a recent photo. (Note the modern piece of test equipment at the top.) The system is still in use after 40 years! The pic is a few years old. The station was set up for remote control. I don't know what's current. Greg |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
gregz wrote:
Picture that does have six channels. This might be same panel, but reinstalled after some station updating. http://www.zekfrivolous.com/goldstone/sub/APOLL021.jpg That looks like a monitoring panel for a big TWT power amplifier. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
learning from experience
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
That looks like a monitoring panel for a big TWT power amplifier. Because that's what it is. The six buttons across the bottom select a channel, using a step-motor system to reset the klystron's cavities. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Learning the art of mastering | Pro Audio | |||
Learning about Home Audio | Audio Opinions | |||
Learning to Play the Piano | Pro Audio | |||
Protools learning | Pro Audio | |||
Protools learning | Pro Audio |