From: Jerry Avins on
Randy Yates wrote:
> Randy Yates <yates(a)ieee.org> writes:
>
>> John Monro <johnmonro(a)optusnet.com.au> writes:
>>
>>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>>> "steveu" <steveu(a)coppice.org> writes:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Any sufficiently large object is not going to fall down a small hole. I
>>>>> think reasonableness of size is implicit in the argument.
>>>> A two-foot diameter would require a lip size of about 5 inches. Is that
>>>> unreasonably large? It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.
>>> It makes the cover twice as heavy.
>> Well, not TWICE as heavy, is it? First, there must be some lip, so we
>> should be comparing the difference between minimal lip and big lip.
>> Second, it wouldn't be the same thickness as the center portion.
>>
>> Assuming the center is 1 foot radius, the little lip is 0.1 feet and the
>> big lip is 0.5 feet, and the lip thickness is 1/2 the center, we'd come
>> up with a ratio of 1.625/1.105, or 47 percent heavier. If I did my math
>> right...
>>
>> Yeah, that's significantly heavier, but it's not the slam dunk Steve
>> was making it out to be, in my estimation.
>>
>> Anyway, this seems ever more so to support my point that it is weight
>> (and material and cost), not geometry, that decides this.
>
> I should say, "..., not hole-fall-through-ability"...

Let's ask the guy down in the hole how important it is that the cover
not fall through. :-)

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: steveu on
>Look in any IEEE transactions and you
>will find good papers mixed with papers on marginal extensions to
>theory blown up to huge proportions.

Hey, don't knock the papers that document a marginal extension to
something. We can't all break new ground like Claude Shannon (who had a PhD
before he did his ground breaking work) or Charles Kao (who didn't). Most
things *are* just minor extensions of existing stuff, and its no bad thing.
That's where the vast majority of progress comes from - tiny little mole
hills piled up into mountains.

Steve

From: HardySpicer on
On Dec 30, 8:27 am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...(a)ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote:
>
> (snip, someone wrote)
>
> >>> I was talking to a power electronics lecturer from a reasonably
> >>> good university in the UK recently. He told me only two courses
> >>> in their entire electronics degree program now have any practical
> >>> content. For everything else, the only lab is Matlab.
>
> (snip)
>
> > I can't imagine an EE degree without the hands-on lab stuff.  How do you
> > make people responsible for building stuff safely if they're never
> > allowed to see for themselves what the issues may be?
>
> I am not so sure how it works in EE, but in physics there are
> theoretical and experimental physicists.  Many good theoretical
> physicists aren't very good at lab work.  There is the well known
> "Pauli effect"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_effect
>

Engineers haven't realised this yet. The industry ones bleat on and
one about how they are the only ones that can solve real problems and
the academics bleat on and on about the limitations of industry. There
is little respect of one wrt the other as you can see.

From: HardySpicer on
On Dec 30, 9:28 am, Rune Allnor <all...(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 29 Des, 20:44, HardySpicer <gyansor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 8:26 pm, Rune Allnor <all...(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> > > Again, *first* earn the privilege; *then* recieve ranks
> > > and titles. Ceremonies are nothing but voodoo and mysticism
> > > that have nothing to do with engineering.
>
> > > Rune
>
> > You are missing the point. A Ph.D means you have particular training
> > in an area of research and that you have contributed to knowledge in
> > that area.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> That's what everybody *think* it means, and it might even have
> been true some time in ancient history, but it is not true now.
>
> My own thesis fails your proposition simply because everything
> I did had been done before. I assembled a number of DSP methods

There's an old Scottish saying..never wash your dirty knickers in
public!
Of course there are some Ph.Ds which are marginal. Some are more
application based in engineering with little theory other than
existing theory.
However, a good engineering School will be looking for some form of
real contribution to knowledge. It may be small but it has to be
there! To make sure of this we have an external from the same country
and one from a different country as well as an internal. On top of
that the student must present early findings to a panel where
everybody in the dept is invited. That's how it's done in NZ at least.
If you don't have anything new you will be found out. However, usually
publishing peer-reviewed papers is taken to be proof of an original
contribution. You can usually get away with applying new theoretical
ideas of others to an advanced problem in engineering. For example,
applying (at the time0 H infinity control to stability of a fighter
jet would be ok! Usually a small theoretical contribution would not go
amiss either.

Hardy

From: HardySpicer on
On Dec 30, 4:22 pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...(a)audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2:17 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lot of truth in that re bogus outputs. Multiple outputs of the same
> > thing in many cases re-worded and sometimes not even re-worded!
> > Yes, new journals do spring up to serve the tenure thing and so on and
> > so on.  For all that though, the academic system - peer-reviewed
> > system is the best we have to date.
>
> i actually think that the academic system that preceded the present
> one, say ca. 1930, was better as a system.  PhDs should be very rare
> and very special.  no one should be getting a PhD unless they
> contribute to the body of knowledge stuff that is *novel*,

I think you have rose tinted idea of the 1930s. Of course there were
great Ph.Ds about then and there still are.
There are Ph.Ds that do incremental work (esp in Chemistry) and others
which are more revolutionary. Sometimes the good work happens several
years after the Ph.D. Many people look back and don't boast much about
their Ph.D. It's what you have done since that matters. As somebody
else pointed out, the Ph.D is just the starting point in an academic
career. Look at the discovery of DNA. This is a good example that took
place in the early part of the last century. The fitting together of a
jigsaw puzzle. The person who did the real science was a woman who got
hardly any credit till now. She did the basic lab work on x-ray
crystallography. She didn't fit all the pieces together. Crick and
Watson did. Does anybody know what any one of the 3 did their Ph.Ds
on? I don't and I bet it wasn't that brilliant either. Ditto for the
inventors of the transistor. The Ph.D provided the basic foundation
for them to carry on and do better work. Likewise for engineers in
industry. A great many may well have scraped by and just passed but
gone on to be brilliant engineers. (some may not!).

There were some good things about that time however. Not so much
pressure to produce endless publications. Quality rather than quantity
counted.
Less people went to University then - was that a good thing? I don't
think so. Often people with money were the ones who went to Uni and
the very best with Scholarships. The rest could whistle. So much more
could have been accomplished - maybe those people who never made it to
Uni could have done great things.
Things happen fast nowadays. You have to have the paper 'camera ready"
and submitted on-line. No typing with golf-ball typwriters and the
like and mailing your paper abroad.
by the way - Widrow was an academic who has achieved great things in
DSP. He even invented the basis for the Neural net. Great man and an
American too.

Hardy