On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:36:59 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:


I took an expensive advanced microwave design short course some years
ago. The instructor was a person who'd worked in the field for many
years. With disturbing frequency, he would come out with statements I
knew to be false and, after some questioning, I discovered that he
didn't have any idea of the fundamental (or basic) criteria for
oscillation. He'd been designing oscillators for years without really
knowing what made them oscillate. This might have been a case of someone
who read the "intermediate" texts without ever reading the "fundamental"
ones.

This isn't to say that people can't design useful things without fully
understanding what they're doing -- I'm convinced that a majority of
useful things are created this way. But you can do an awfully lot more
if you have a real fundamental understanding of how things work. The
most truly creative and innovative engineers I've known have this
understanding -- and an intense curiosity about things they don't know.

well, said! But isn't this the very frequent feeling one gets from
reading amateur radio magazines? The constructors (I wouldn't use the
word "designer") should have constructed and tested at least 10 equal
constructions, or have similar experience before publishing an idea,
which may later turn out that might not be repeatable

Too often constructions are published when it is a hope rather than
experience that it is a good idea. For somebody it is more important
to use wellknown devices than trying to propose something else

73, Jan-Martin

---
J. M. Noeding, LA8AK, N-4623 Kristiansand
http://home.online.no/~la8ak/c.htm