Optimizing Interdisciplinarity

[Bret Cahill]

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.


Bret Cahill

 

[Brian Whatcott]

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

 

[Sir Frederick]

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.

 

[John Larkin]

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

 

[Bret Cahill]

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.


Bret Cahil

 

[John Larkin]

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

 

[John Fields]

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

 

[Bob Monsen]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:834800cf-83eb-4f86-9065-76a8c7b4e6c9@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Hey, Bret, we get the idea. You want to fuck with these newsgroups because
they trounced your idea for battery powered tractors.

Could you please stop now? It's getting quite boring.

Thanks,
Bob Monsen

 

[Bob Monsen]

<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

 

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 “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. 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

 

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.

. . .

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?

There are endless other examples

. . .

We need to get some stats on how often

on how often developments comes from those outside their fields.


Bret Cahill

 

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.

Nope. Nothing close.

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.

You have no calculations or reasoning.

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

You cannot disprove that you are pitiful, as worthless as Al Gore in a
dust devil.


Bret Cahill

 

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.

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mansfield

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lauterbur

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.

You have no calculations or reasoning.

You in spades, child.

Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:

How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

And even if the correllation is weak or nonexistent, don't you think
that interdisciplinarity should be researched and properly debunked?


Bret Cahill

 

On Aug 1, 8:15 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill



BretCah...@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

Don't forget chemistry. Hot oxygen over silicon, to make all those
semiconductors...

Michael

 

[Bret Cahill]

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

Don't forget chemistry.  Hot oxygen over silicon, to make all those
semiconductors...

The atomic scientists were the first to realize that biotech would
take over.

If the algae diesel folk can get 50K gallons / acre - year then the
physicists were correct.

The converse may or may not be true.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Yes, but a PHYSICAL chemist.

OK, so he worked out in the weight room a lot.

So what?

? That technology, NMR and MRI

is the province of PHYSICAL chemists

P-chemists ain't provential. They are cosmopolitan and drink six
packs of Bud just like anyone else.

, not physics,

If you think you have a better physique than the governator, then why
don't you post under your real name?

so there is
no interdisciplinarity or different fields whatever involved.

Lunatics have no credibility

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.
You have no calculations or reasoning.
You in spades, child.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
Again, how does working �at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question.

And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.

Again, how does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

We'll determine the extent of your larnin' disability.

We'll assign a number to this wacko.

The number = number of dodges before he gives up.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Yes, but a PHYSICAL chemist.

OK, so he worked out in the weight room a lot.
So what?

Pathetic.

That technology, NMR and MRI is the province of PHYSICAL chemists

P-chemists ain't provential.

No such word.

You just haven't _heard_ of the word.

You wanted some wimp word like provincial.

They are cosmopolitan and drink six packs of Bud just like anyone else.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed mud stained fantasys, child.

not physics,

If you think you have a better physique than the governator,
then why don't you post under your real name?

Pathetic.

We won't know that until you go on youtube.

. . .

Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in the patent office.
How does that make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
You have no calculations or reasoning.
You in spades, child.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question.
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
Again, how does working �at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

Again, how does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

We'll determine the extent of your larnin' disability.

We'll assign a number to this wacko.

Just how many of you are there between those ears, child ?

Every time you dodge it will be noted.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in
the patent office.
How does that make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
You have no calculations or reasoning.
You in spades, child.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question.
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Again, how does working �at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

A pathetic dodge.

Again, how does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

We'll determine the extent of your larnin' disability.
We'll assign a number to this wacko.

5 dodges and counting.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Hardly surprising given that he was initially employed in
the patent office.
How does that make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
You have no calculations or reasoning.
You in spades, child.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question:
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
How does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Pathetic.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Every time you dodge I'll pop the same question.
And I'll respond precisely the same way, child.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
Again, how does working ?at the PO make Einstein a ME?
Again, pathetic.
A pathetic dodge.

You wouldnt know what a real dodge was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

Again, how does working �at the PO make Einstein a ME?

Again, pathetic.

Again, how does working at the PO make Einstein a ME?

We'll determine the extent of your larnin' disability.

We'll assign a number to this wacko.

5 dodges and counting.

6 dodges and counting!

You wouldnt know what a real dodge was

You certainly will get in the Guiness Book of World Records at this
rate.

Record # of dodges for a single thread!


Bret Cahill