Re: RC: Reply from an educated derelict

[David LeBlanc <dleblanc@mindspring.com>]

At 09:21 PM 12/27/99 EST, Tivers@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 12/27/99 4:28:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, CMKSAGEHIL 
>writes:

><< << Yes, but the need exists, nonetheless. It seems to me that you have
the 
>choice to snooze along until some grand poohbah makes an announcement, that 
>is sure to be proven half wrong in another decade, or you can start trying 
>thengs and if you find something that works, you pass on the information. >>
 
> Generally, it's those questions asked in the field that stimulate the 
>research, not the other way aroound. >

>Convenient, if you're seeking funds for research and can't think of a 
>question to ask. 

It's been that way historically in many fields.  However, research does
provide a lot of value in many areas.  For example, I was associated with a
project to investigate cerebral hemorrhaging in newborns.  Most of the
newborns were also on respirators, so we knew the respirators were very
likely to be part of the problem.  What we didn't know was what the
respirator was doing wrong.  Although we weren't the first to come up with
the answer, what it turned out to be was that the respirator was driving
the baby's blood pressure at a frequency that it couldn't regulate.
Doctors didn't have the engineering background to ask the right questions.
Once the problem was found, it was a simple matter to change the frequency
of the respirators, and a lot of lives have been saved as a result.  We'd
have probably lost a lot more lives before someone in the field happened to
stumble on the answer.

We run into the same thing in aerospace - we were flying at supersonic
speeds well before we knew how to model the aerodynamics in that range.
However, we had a bit of a problem with planes going out of control and
test pilots dying.  Once the science was understood, we could design
aircraft to operate properly at trans-sonic speeds.

>But, really, most questions are asked, and answered in the 
>field. 

For some value of most.  The devices we're using to communicate are
examples of an area where things almost always go from research into
production, and you see almost nothing developed in the field.

>Yes, that's the pattern. Especially with things that have never been done 
>before. In real life, the "whys" matter less than the "hows".  

Depends on what you're doing.  In the two examples above, the whys saved
lives.


David LeBlanc
dleblanc@mindspring.com


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=