Jon, I again apologize for being so rough; my emotions do get the best
of me when higher education issues come into play. Blame it on my
choice to be a regent for several colleges for 20 years, but it is a
subject closer to my heart than anything save my religion. Thus I do
get out of hand.
In no way would I want to discredit the fine program at UI-Urbana. It
is a credit to what can be done in an undergrad curriculum, as is VPI's,
another fine RF undergrad program. Alas, programs which provide such a
focus often leave one not quite understanding how to solve problems. My
reference to undergraduate physics was made with certain ideas in mind.
The behaviors we discuss on this reflector regarding arcs and gas
discharges are answerable with an appropriate study of the nature of
covalent electron bonding. In your chemistry class, covalent electron
bonding was the basic theory that led to chemistry equations. In your
materials classes, covalent electron bonding explains why metals conduct
and corrode and non-metals don't. In your semiconductor physics
classes, covalent electron bonding explains the action of a bipolar
junction transistor. One would think that, having used the knowledge of
covalent electron bonding so many times in so many classes (I agree with
you - use it or lose it - therefore they should have had you using it a
lot), that you'd now find yourself in a position to use your knowledge
to study the gas discharge/arc effects.
If you took any accounting or finance classes, you studied the subject
with dollars as the example currency. Don't you think that if you
suddenly found yourself in Germany, that you'd be able to apply your
knowledge to the German Mark? If so, why should it be such a leap to
apply your understanding of electron bonding to metals and gasses and
vacuums? That's the failure of higher ed - the focus is too much on
techniques, and not principles. This is not a U of I issue, it is a
fundamental, and predictable, outcome of institutionalizing education.
Socrates predicted it when he wrote his Apology, and it has come true in
abundance in this country.
>>Not learning what you're exposed to creates ignorance.
>
>WRONG. That's about the most arrogant attitude that I can think of.
>Ignorance comes from being afraid to ask questions regardless of wether
I'm sorry you took that one so parochially, Jon. Please look at my
statement again, with a larger view. If you ask your questions (and I
do agree - note that I've not called your questions dumb or stupid,
merely surprising, which is not reprehensible), get an answer and still
do not learn from a second exposure, you are still ignorant. The
ignorance ceases when you do learn what you're exposed to. Exposure may
be force-fed, as in a classroom, it may be coincidental, such as
watching the engineer on the next bench (my personal favorite method of
learning) or it might be because you ask the right questions.
I apologize again for my earlier outburst.
Arlen
>you learned it before or not.
>
>73,
>
>Jon
>KE9NA
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jon Ogden
>
>jono@webspun.com
>www.qsl.net/ke9na
>
>"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|