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
|