The future of CPU based computing, mini clusters.
|
Prev: Maximum ammount of local variables in cg shaders ?
Next: Online Exams for Certification, Free Practice Exams, Study Material, Dumps
From: Robert Myers on 2 Nov 2009 14:17 On Nov 2, 1:03 pm, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > In article <d82693a7-864a-4fec-a676-5a94bf453...(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups..com>, > Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Nov 2, 7:48 am, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > >> Rocket science is almost trivial; rocket engineering is hard. Quite > >> a lot of things are like that. > > >If X engineering is hard, it's almost because X science is missing or > >incomplete. > > >That is, in my not so humble opinion, particularly true of rocket > >science, which is anything but trivial. > > Throw stuff in one direction, you move in the other direction. > That's rocket science. The rest is engineering. > There's a nontrivial amount of other types of science behind that > engineering, but 'tain't rocket science. > Sorry, but inasmuch as my most advanced degree and most of my experience is in fluid mechanics, I must disagree. Getting a rocket to lift off the pad without shaking everything to pieces is still a hard problem. Returning things to earth from orbit is similarly a hard problem. Cut and try is very expensive and sometimes fatal. The science, such as it is, is far from being in hand, and, if there is such a thing as rocket science, trying to understand what happens with all the various fluids at launch and reentry would have to qualify. Robert.
From: Del Cecchi on 2 Nov 2009 23:12 <dj3vande(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid> wrote in message news:hcn6u8$ert$1(a)rumours.uwaterloo.ca... > In article > <d82693a7-864a-4fec-a676-5a94bf453bcb(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>On Nov 2, 7:48 am, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >> >>> Rocket science is almost trivial; rocket engineering is hard. >>> Quite >>> a lot of things are like that. >> >>If X engineering is hard, it's almost because X science is missing >>or >>incomplete. >> >>That is, in my not so humble opinion, particularly true of rocket >>science, which is anything but trivial. > > Throw stuff in one direction, you move in the other direction. > That's rocket science. The rest is engineering. > There's a nontrivial amount of other types of science behind that > engineering, but 'tain't rocket science. > > > dave > > -- > Dave Vandervies dj3vande at eskimo dot com > I wouldn't pay anyone who used realloc like THAT, except perhaps to > clean the toilets. > --infobahn in comp.lang.c I always wondered what "rocket science" was. F=MA? or turbulent flow in hypersonic regime. Some things are scientifically easy but hard in practice. All you have to do is deposit a 100 nm film uniformly over the surface of that 300 mm wafer. All you have to do is make the bat intersect the ball as it crosses the plate. A lot of semiconductor stuff is in that category. You can do the experiments to figure it out but that is essentially the engineering. del
From: Del Cecchi on 2 Nov 2009 23:17 "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:94433a1b-fdc8-4739-9926-cee48535bb57(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Nov 2, 1:03 pm, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > In article > <d82693a7-864a-4fec-a676-5a94bf453...(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Nov 2, 7:48 am, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > >> Rocket science is almost trivial; rocket engineering is hard. > >> Quite > >> a lot of things are like that. > > >If X engineering is hard, it's almost because X science is missing > >or > >incomplete. > > >That is, in my not so humble opinion, particularly true of rocket > >science, which is anything but trivial. > > Throw stuff in one direction, you move in the other direction. > That's rocket science. The rest is engineering. > There's a nontrivial amount of other types of science behind that > engineering, but 'tain't rocket science. > Sorry, but inasmuch as my most advanced degree and most of my experience is in fluid mechanics, I must disagree. Getting a rocket to lift off the pad without shaking everything to pieces is still a hard problem. Returning things to earth from orbit is similarly a hard problem. Cut and try is very expensive and sometimes fatal. The science, such as it is, is far from being in hand, and, if there is such a thing as rocket science, trying to understand what happens with all the various fluids at launch and reentry would have to qualify. Robert. --------------------------- How are you posting? It is very strange that your posts are the only ones that outlook express doesn't properly put the marks on when I reply. So I fire up thunderbird but that is a little annoying to have to do that for a reply. Any ideas as to what might be going on? Could it be google groups?
From: Robert Myers on 2 Nov 2009 23:36 On Nov 2, 11:12 pm, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > <dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid> wrote in message > > news:hcn6u8$ert$1(a)rumours.uwaterloo.ca... > > > > > > > In article > > <d82693a7-864a-4fec-a676-5a94bf453...(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Nov 2, 7:48 am, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > > >>> Rocket science is almost trivial; rocket engineering is hard. > >>> Quite > >>> a lot of things are like that. > > >>If X engineering is hard, it's almost because X science is missing > >>or > >>incomplete. > > >>That is, in my not so humble opinion, particularly true of rocket > >>science, which is anything but trivial. > > > Throw stuff in one direction, you move in the other direction. > > That's rocket science. The rest is engineering. > > There's a nontrivial amount of other types of science behind that > > engineering, but 'tain't rocket science. > > > dave > > > -- > > Dave Vandervies dj3vande at eskimo dot com > > I wouldn't pay anyone who used realloc like THAT, except perhaps to > > clean the toilets. > > --infobahn in comp.lang.c > > I always wondered what "rocket science" was. F=MA? or turbulent flow > in hypersonic regime. Some things are scientifically easy but hard in > practice. All you have to do is deposit a 100 nm film uniformly over > the surface of that 300 mm wafer. All you have to do is make the bat > intersect the ball as it crosses the plate. > > A lot of semiconductor stuff is in that category. You can do the > experiments to figure it out but that is essentially the engineering. > There's a million dollar prize out for proving the most basic properties of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. Practical consequences of understanding those equations include launch shake, foam shedding, and the hazards of reentry. Computers play a big role, which is why lots of fluid mechanicists are so involved with computers. F=ma (or it's continuum mechanics equivalent, the Reynolds transport theorem applied to mass, momentum, and energy) will take you a long way, but the math is still hard. When you do turbulence, a lot of stuff starts to look like quantum field theory, which is one reason I am extremely skeptical of quantum voodoo. I'm not a laboratory scientist. That was settled early on. I calculate stuff, sometimes analyze data, and often do stuff that could be regarded as either science or engineering. Nick works at the University of Cambridge, where the University Press publishes the Journal of Fluid Mechanics and there is a long and impressive history of non-trivial contributions to the field. He really should have known better. Robert.
From: nmm1 on 3 Nov 2009 08:58
In article <30b13890-50c6-4b47-8ed4-99769f847112(a)o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Nick works at the >University of Cambridge, where the University Press publishes the >Journal of Fluid Mechanics and there is a long and impressive history >of non-trivial contributions to the field. He really should have >known better. Oh, yes, I know that - our Engineering department is very highly regarded for its work in that area. Now, what is it that I should have known better? :-) Yes, I know that DAMTP and Physics also work in such areas, but I stand by my point, and I think that others agree with me. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |