Ward,
Thanks for chiming in with the "data comm" metaphor. One thing that I have had
to accept in my (too) many years of hanging out in the electronics industry is
that people tend to accumulate knowledge at a particular level of abstraction.
The generic EE may think in terms of transistors/gates/system blocks while the
physicist might be focused on little particles like electrons and neutrons.
Meanwhile, the systems engineer is doing Laplace transforms or figuring out the
application layer. None of these views is inherently better than the others.
All brains are finite in size, so most of us can't hold the full stack of
knowledge. Well, at least I can't.
73,
Bob K0NR
> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:43:47 -0700
> From: "Ward Silver" <hwardsil@centurytel.net>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] The Basics
> To: "Towertalk Reflector" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <002e01c58ed4$2696b8b0$7ca9fea9@WardsNotebook>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I have a copy around here somewhere of a letter to the editor in the 1970's
> from a respected IEEE Fellow complaining that all the basic transconductance
> technology (vacuum tubes) was being lost in the rush to solid-state. It's a
> regular theme - not necessarily incorrect, just regular. Today, I see a
> fundamental lack of "physical layer" knowledge (to use the data comm model)
> in most students because they don't start their learning on that level any
> more. They start up at the "applications level" and have to work their way
> back down. My personal opinion is that it is easier to learn from physical
> up than it is from application down and makes for a more versatile engineer.
> Nevertheless, it is obviously possible to make a fine engineer (or an
> incompetent) going in either direction.
>
> There is a tremendously wider span of technology in use today. Consider the
> wireless network node IC. One tiny piece of silicon implements concepts
> from solid-state physics based on quantum mechanics through RF and analog
> electronics, to computation, to abstract network topology. All in one chip!
> I know of very, very few individuals competent to address all of those
> technologies on an applied basis. This requires a team and systems approach
> because there is just far too much for one individual to master. It's clear
> that a collection of experts plus modern collaboration techniques works and
> works well. Systems engineering may be the biggest single advance of the
> past half-century because it allows us to build large and complex structures
> without requiring all-knowing architects to run the show.
>
> "They would never have gotten off the ground if the inventors understood
> basics or used good verification or measurement methods."
>
> Remember that sometimes the basics are incomplete (this, too, is discovered
> on a regular basis) and need to be challenged. The second part of your
> sentence is the key, however, to deciding whether the purported advance is,
> in fact, an advance or just another misunderstanding. That is how we weed
> out the mostly bogus ideas like the (here comes the tower and antenna
> content) CFA, EH, and other such things. Cold fusion, for example, as
> originally proposed was bogus, but cracked the door to other avenues of
> exploration and slowly some investigators are finding possible avenues to
> low-temperature fusion.
>
> Theorize, but verify.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|