 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Optimizing Interdisciplinarity
There are 37 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 20.
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 11:35 01-08-08
|
|
> > > InnoCentive found that =93the further the problem was from the
> > > solver=92s expertise, the
> > > : more likely they were to solve it,=94 often by applying specialized
> > > knowledge or
> > > : instruments developed for another purpose.
Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning the breakthrough the
more dissimilar the fields.
It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species. There
comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.
The number of advances probably increases as the fields become more
similar, at least to a point. The only problem is that the advances
aren't as great.
Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.
The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
"distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is one "ID",
to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of breakthroughs v ID
etc.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 14:38 01-08-08
|
|
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the
solver’s
>>>>> expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,” often by
applying
>>>>> specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another purpose.
> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthrus
of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, working out
what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated circuit,
or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
> It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species.
Nope, nothing like.
> There comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.
Pity about GM, child.
> The number of advances probably increases as the fields become more similar,
> at least to a point. The only problem is that the advances aren't as great.
Another silly claim plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.
More of your desperate wanking.
> The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
> "distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is one
"ID",
> to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of breakthroughs v ID etc.
Not even possible.
|
|
|
|
Author: Brian WhatcottDate: 20:43 01-08-08
|
|
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 04:38:21 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
///
>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>
>Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthrus
>of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, working out
>what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated circuit,
>or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
Not so sure - James Watt was an instrument maker at Glasgow University
before coming to Birmingham to work with Bolton on the stunning
condenser steam engine.
Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, before moving to the Royal
Institution - but way before that, I think it was a physician who came
up with the sulphur ball on a spindle method of powering an electric
telegraph.. Wasn't evolutionary genetics worked out by a monk?
Photography - that was a bitumen on glass method initially, if I
recall....
BrianW
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 22:34 01-08-08
|
|
Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
>> breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
>> evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of
>> the transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
>> photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
> Not so sure - James Watt was an instrument maker
> at Glasgow University before coming to Birmingham
> to work with Bolton on the stunning condenser steam engine.
Doesnt qualify as 'the more dissimilar the fields' and toy steam engines
had been around for a hell of a long time before they were ever used
for something practical like pumping in a mine, and its hardly surprising
that an instrument maker would have been aware of toy steam engines.
Tho I guess you could claim that that particular one does involve rather
different fields since instrument making and mining are quite different fields.
> Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, before moving to the Royal Institution
Doesnt mean that the discovery of electricity had anything to do with bookbinding tho.
> - but way before that, I think it was a physician who came up with
> the sulphur ball on a spindle method of powering an electric telegraph..
> Wasn't evolutionary genetics worked out by a monk?
Nope. Thats just plant breeding and everyone ran the line that you couldnt
breed even a donkey and a horse and get any progeny that could reproduce.
Different matter entirely to establishing that evolution is what happened naturally.
Thats as silly as saying that Chas Darwin was involved with religion before he twigged
to evolution.
> Photography - that was a bitumen on glass method initially, if I recall....
Still nothing to do with dissimilar fields, just the use of what worked
by someone who had enough of a clue to think of that approach.
|
|
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickDate: 22:58 01-08-08
|
|
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:34:17 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>
>>> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
>>> breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
>>> evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of
>>> the transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
>>> photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
>
>> Not so sure - James Watt was an instrument maker
>> at Glasgow University before coming to Birmingham
>> to work with Bolton on the stunning condenser steam engine.
>
>Doesnt qualify as 'the more dissimilar the fields' and toy steam engines
>had been around for a hell of a long time before they were ever used
>for something practical like pumping in a mine, and its hardly surprising
>that an instrument maker would have been aware of toy steam engines.
>
>Tho I guess you could claim that that particular one does involve rather
>different fields since instrument making and mining are quite different fields.
>
>> Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, before moving to the Royal Institution
>
>Doesnt mean that the discovery of electricity had anything to do with bookbinding
tho.
According to reports Faraday read a lot of the books that came
into the shop where he worked. A lot of those books were science
oriented. Thus he received a leading edge education on the science
of the day. Of course he was very intelligent, that helped.
Then his particular religion was well suited for science
investigation and theorizing, different than Newton's, but had similar
effects.
>
>> - but way before that, I think it was a physician who came up with
>> the sulphur ball on a spindle method of powering an electric telegraph..
>
>> Wasn't evolutionary genetics worked out by a monk?
>
>Nope. Thats just plant breeding and everyone ran the line that you couldnt
>breed even a donkey and a horse and get any progeny that could reproduce.
>
>Different matter entirely to establishing that evolution is what happened naturally.
>
>Thats as silly as saying that Chas Darwin was involved with religion before he
twigged to evolution.
>
>> Photography - that was a bitumen on glass method initially, if I recall....
>
>Still nothing to do with dissimilar fields, just the use of what worked
>by someone who had enough of a clue to think of that approach.
>
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 23:15 01-08-08
|
|
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>> > > InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from the
>> > > solver’s expertise, the
>> > > : more likely they were to solve it,” often by applying specialized
>> > > knowledge or
>> > > : instruments developed for another purpose.
>
>Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning the breakthrough the
>more dissimilar the fields.
>
>It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species. There
>comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.
>
>The number of advances probably increases as the fields become more
>similar, at least to a point. The only problem is that the advances
>aren't as great.
>
>Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.
>
>The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
>"distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is one
"ID",
>to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of breakthroughs v ID
>etc.
>
There's one unifying discipline that has absolutely pervaded all the
sciences, all of technology, and nearly all the arts: electronics.
John
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 00:23 02-08-08
|
|
Sir Frederick <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>>>> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
>>>> breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
>>>> evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of
>>>> the transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
>>>> photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
>>> Not so sure - James Watt was an instrument maker
>>> at Glasgow University before coming to Birmingham
>>> to work with Bolton on the stunning condenser steam engine.
>> Doesnt qualify as 'the more dissimilar the fields' and toy steam engines
>> had been around for a hell of a long time before they were ever used
>> for something practical like pumping in a mine, and its hardly surprising
>> that an instrument maker would have been aware of toy steam engines.
>> Tho I guess you could claim that that particular one does involve rather
>> different fields since instrument making and mining are quite different fields.
>>> Faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice, before moving to the Royal
Institution
>> Doesnt mean that the discovery of electricity had anything to do with
bookbinding tho.
> According to reports Faraday read a lot of the books that came
> into the shop where he worked. A lot of those books were science
> oriented. Thus he received a leading edge education on the science
> of the day. Of course he was very intelligent, that helped.
Thats not interdisciplinarity, just an unusual way of getting and education.
> Then his particular religion was well suited for science investigation
> and theorizing, different than Newton's, but had similar effects.
Still not interdisciplinarity, just his personal circumstances.
>>> - but way before that, I think it was a physician who came up with
>>> the sulphur ball on a spindle method of powering an electric telegraph..
>>> Wasn't evolutionary genetics worked out by a monk?
>> Nope. Thats just plant breeding and everyone ran the line that you couldnt
>> breed even a donkey and a horse and get any progeny that could reproduce.
>> Different matter entirely to establishing that evolution is what happened
naturally.
>> Thats as silly as saying that Chas Darwin was involved with religion before he
twigged to evolution.
>>> Photography - that was a bitumen on glass method initially, if I recall....
>> Still nothing to do with dissimilar fields, just the use of what worked
>> by someone who had enough of a clue to think of that approach.
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 00:26 02-08-08
|
|
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> InnoCentive found that "the further the problem was from the
>>>>> solver's expertise, the
>>>>>> more likely they were to solve it," often by applying
>>>>>> specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another
>>>>>> purpose.
>>
>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning the breakthrough
>> the more dissimilar the fields.
>>
>> It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species. There
>> comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.
>>
>> The number of advances probably increases as the fields become more
>> similar, at least to a point. The only problem is that the advances
>> aren't as great.
>>
>> Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.
>>
>> The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
>> "distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is one
"ID",
>> to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of breakthroughs v
>> ID etc.
> There's one unifying discipline that has absolutely pervaded all the sciences,
Nope, most obviously with the biological sciences early on, before electronics was even
invented.
Ditto in spades with the physical sciences too.
> all of technology,
Wrong again, most obviously with the industrial revolution and
military technology before electronics was even invented.
> and nearly all the arts:
Wrong in spades before electronics was even invented.
> electronics.
Fraid not.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 02:11 02-08-08
|
|
> >>>>> InnoCentive found that =93the further the problem was from the
solv=
er=92s
> >>>>> expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,=94 often by
apply=
ing
> >>>>> specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another
purpose.
> > Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
> > the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthru=
s
> of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, workin=
g out
> what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated cir=
cuit,
> or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
We need the backgrounds of them inventors.
Bret Cahil
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 02:15 02-08-08
|
|
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from
the
>>>>>>> solver’s expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,”
>>>>>>> often by applying specialized knowledge or instruments
>>>>>>> developed for another purpose.
>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthrus
>> of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, working out
>> what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated circuit,
>> or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
> We need the backgrounds of them inventors.
We've got that. Your claim is just mindlessly silly.
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 11:09 02-08-08
|
|
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 14:26:23 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>> <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> InnoCentive found that "the further the problem was from
the
>>>>>> solver's expertise, the
>>>>>>> more likely they were to solve it," often by applying
>>>>>>> specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another
>>>>>>> purpose.
>>>
>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning the breakthrough
>>> the more dissimilar the fields.
>>>
>>> It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species. There
>>> comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.
>>>
>>> The number of advances probably increases as the fields become more
>>> similar, at least to a point. The only problem is that the advances
>>> aren't as great.
>>>
>>> Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.
>>>
>>> The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
>>> "distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is one
"ID",
>>> to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of breakthroughs v
>>> ID etc.
>
>> There's one unifying discipline that has absolutely pervaded all the sciences,
>
>Nope, most obviously with the biological sciences early on, before electronics was
even invented.
>
>Ditto in spades with the physical sciences too.
>
>> all of technology,
>
>Wrong again, most obviously with the industrial revolution and
>military technology before electronics was even invented.
>
>> and nearly all the arts:
>
>Wrong in spades before electronics was even invented.
>
>> electronics.
>
>Fraid not.
>
I said "has pervaded." Having trouble with tenses? Or history?
It's rare that any modern physical experiment isn't instrumented with
electronics, and its data analyzed and published using computers.
Electronics has revolutionized biology (gene sequencing, molecular
analysis) and physics (making quantum mechanics measurable, detecting
particles and quanta) and chemistry and practically any discipline you
can name.
So to do any science or engineering, especially inter-discipline
stuff, it's a huge advantage to be good at electronics, as most really
good scientists are.
Something as simple as Bret's crossover heat exchanger is going to
need some good measurement and control electronics to keep it at its
optimum point, whatever that is. Several delts-p's, lots of
temperatures, maybe the power input to the pumps.
John
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 12:06 02-08-08
|
|
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:11:44 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from
the solver’s
>> >>>>> expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,” often
by applying
>> >>>>> specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another
purpose.
>> > Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>> > the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>
>> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthrus
>> of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, working out
>> what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated circuit,
>> or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
>
>We need the backgrounds of them inventors.
---
Geez, you're always so ready to speak for everyone else.
The backgrounds of those inventors are easily accessible, and if _you_
need to find out what they were then it behooves _you_ to do the
legwork.
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 15:31 02-08-08
|
|
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
>>> Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> InnoCentive found that "the further the problem
was from
>>>>>>>> the solver's expertise, the more likely they were to
solve it,"
>>>>>>>> often by applying specialized knowledge or instruments
>>>>>>>> developed for another purpose.
>>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>>>> It's kind of like splicing fruit or cross breeding species.
>>>> There comes a point when it ain't gonna happen.
>>>> The number of advances probably increases as the
>>>> fields become more similar, at least to a point. The
>>>> only problem is that the advances aren't as great.
>>>> Fast nickel v slow dime optimization problem.
>>>> The N. A. of Sciences needs to develop some kind of units of
>>>> "distance" between two fields, say chemistry to physics is
one
>>>> "ID", to generate all kinds of statistical data, plots of
>>>> breakthroughs v ID etc.
>>> There's one unifying discipline that has absolutely pervaded all the
sciences,
>> Nope, most obviously with the biological sciences early on, before electronics
was even invented.
>> Ditto in spades with the physical sciences too.
>>> all of technology,
>> Wrong again, most obviously with the industrial revolution and
>> military technology before electronics was even invented.
>>> and nearly all the arts:
>> Wrong in spades before electronics was even invented.
>>> electronics.
>> Fraid not.
> I said "has pervaded." Having trouble with tenses? Or history?
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Pity electronics doesnt qualify as a 'unifying discipline' in that sense either.
> It's rare that any modern physical experiment isn't instrumented with
> electronics, and its data analyzed and published using computers.
Thats as silly as claiming that the printing press
is a 'unifying discipline' in all those fields. Fraid not.
> Electronics has revolutionized biology (gene sequencing, molecular analysis)
> and physics (making quantum mechanics measurable, detecting particles
> and quanta) and chemistry and practically any discipline you can name.
Thats as silly as claiming that chemistry is a 'unifying discipline' in all those
fields. Fraid not.
> So to do any science or engineering, especially inter-discipline stuff, it's a
> huge advantage to be good at electronics, as most really good scientists are.
That last is just plain wrong. Very few of them are.
> Something as simple as Bret's crossover heat exchanger
> is going to need some good measurement and control
> electronics to keep it at its optimum point, whatever that is.
And fuck all plant breeding does.
> Several delts-p's, lots of temperatures, maybe the power input to the pumps.
Dont get much of that with painting pictures.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob MonsenDate: 03:03 03-08-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you aren't interested in interdisciplinarity, then why did you
click on a thread devoted to the issue?
I warn people not to click on every thread -- for better or worse I
know I don't do it -- but so many are irrational here.
Bret Cahill
"They [the proto nazis] are not authorized to read my work."
-- Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
|
> >>>>> InnoCentive found that =93the further the problem was from the
solv=
er=92s
> >>>>> expertise, the more likely they were to solve it,=94 often by
apply=
ing
> >>>>> specialized knowledge or instruments developed for another
purpose.
> > Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
> > the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning breakthru=
s
> of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity, evolution, workin=
g out
> what DNA is about, the invention of the transistor, or the integrated cir=
cuit,
> or radio, or TV or photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
A chemist came up with the MRI. Einstein came up with the Freon based
cooling system which is considered more mechanical engineering that
atomic physics. There are endless other examples so we know it
happens.
We need to get some stats on how often and turn interdisciplinarity
itself into a science.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 16:38 03-08-08
|
|
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>>>>>> InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was from
>>>>>>> the solver’s expertise, the more likely they were to solve
it,”
>>>>>>> often by applying specialized knowledge or instruments
>>>>>>> developed for another purpose.
>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
>> breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
>> evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of the
>> transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
>> photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
> A chemist came up with the MRI.
A PHYSICAL chemist. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you dont have a clue about how broad the field of chemistry actually is.
> Einstein came up with the Freon based cooling system which
> is considered more mechanical engineering that atomic physics.
Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in the patent office.
> There are endless other examples
Pity neither of those is one of them.
> so we know it happens.
Nothing like your original silly claim about the MORE STUNNING BREAKTHRUS.
> We need to get some stats on how often
YOU made the stupid claim.
YOU get to do that.
THATS how it works.
> and turn interdisciplinarity itself into a science.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob MonsenDate: 17:27 03-08-08
|
|
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:49b92afb-32cd-4d46-ac7c-7188bc2f4a47@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> If you aren't interested in interdisciplinarity, then why did you
> click on a thread devoted to the issue?
>
> I warn people not to click on every thread -- for better or worse I
> know I don't do it -- but so many are irrational here.
>
Just go away please. You are being a child, and making this group a cesspool
with your useless threads. We don't like your moronic idea about tractors.
So what. Grow up, please, and stop crapping all over our newsgroups.
(btw, I snipped out the other victim groups)
-- bob monsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
> >>>>>>> InnoCentive found that =93the further the problem was
from
> >>>>>>> the solver=92s expertise, the more likely they were to
solve it,=
=94
> >>>>>>> often by applying specialized knowledge or instruments
> >>>>>>> developed for another purpose.
> >>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
> >>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
> >> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
> >> breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
> >> evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of the
> >> transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
> >> photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
> > A chemist came up with the MRI.
>
> A PHYSICAL chemist.
Which ain't no physicist.
=2E . .
> > Einstein came up with the Freon based cooling system which
> > is considered more mechanical engineering that atomic physics.
> Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in the patent offi=
ce.
How does that make Einstein a ME?
> > There are endless other examples
=2E . .
> > We need to get some stats on how often
on how often developments comes from those outside their fields.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 01:44 04-08-08
|
|
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> InnoCentive found that “the further the problem was
from
>>>>>>>>> the solver’s expertise, the more likely they were
to solve
>>>>>>>>> it,” often by applying specialized knowledge or
instruments
>>>>>>>>> developed for another purpose.
>>>>> Maybe it would be better to say the more stunning
>>>>> the breakthrough the more dissimilar the fields.
>>>> Or maybe thats mindlessly silly. Didnt happen with the stunning
>>>> breakthrus of the industrial revolution, discovery of electricity,
>>>> evolution, working out what DNA is about, the invention of the
>>>> transistor, or the integrated circuit, or radio, or TV or
>>>> photography or movies or the PC or the net either.
>>> A chemist came up with the MRI.
>> A PHYSICAL chemist.
> Which ain't no physicist.
It does however involved other similar technologys like NMR etc.
>>> Einstein came up with the Freon based cooling system which
>>> is considered more mechanical engineering that atomic physics.
>> Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in the patent office.
> How does that make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
>>> There are endless other examples
>>> We need to get some stats on how often
> on how often developments comes from those outside their fields.
Pity neither of those you waved around qualifys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
