[rollei_list] Re: Austin has Unsubscribed
- From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:50:41 +0100
You don't understand what I said, sorry.
Frank
On 19 Apr, 2005, at 15:49, TrueBadger@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 4/19/2005 3:31:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> Hi Mark,
>> I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am an engineer and I
>> learned if theory and practice disagree it is the theory that is wrong
>> :-)
>>
>
> This is wrong on so many levels that one hardly knows where to begin.
> To the
> contrary, when a well-established theory seems to be violated by
> practical
> results, it usually means that the "engineer" applied either the
> theory or the
> practice incorrectly to begin with, and very likely really understands
> neither.
>
> There are situations, such as in high frequency work where the theory
> cannot
> take into account any number of physical considerations resulting from
> implementation, but insofar as theory can adequately describe the
> situation, it's
> generally more reliable than the hodge-podge of methodology we term
> "practice".
>
> One example that I recall is when a technician reported that the
> inductance
> of a coil he had been instructed to wind and test increased when turns
> of wire
> were removed. .. I said "So then if you take all the turns off the
> inductance
> will be maximized?"
>
> Needless to say, theory prevailed.
>
> G. King
>
>
>
Other related posts:
