Neil,
Yes, the computer/software thing is worrisome for a number of reasons. One
guy, Henry Petroski, who studies civil engineering failures, has identified
a 30-year cycle when bridges and other structures start failing, even
relatively new ones. Apparently what happens is that the guy who initially
develops the design bases and formulas and uses limiting, but necessary,
assumptions concerning the solutions of the equations, materials, conditions
of use, etc. As time passes, other people continue applying the original
design bases and formulas, but forget or ignore the original assumptions,
exceed the validity of the original design bases, and things start to fall
down.
I saw this happen once when a guy made a perfectly logical assumption to do
an analytical comparison of alternate space propulsion concepts. Trouble
was, another guy came along afterwards and used the "comparison" results to
design a "specific" propulsion system which failed because the logic that
was okay for the comparison was actually illogical for the real world
specific design. When that kind of mistake sneaks in it often doesn't get
recognized until something bad happens.
With so many people using "canned" software to design things and very few
people using back-of-the envelope calculations, checking worst case
assumptions, and a using a little imagination and insight with pencil and
paper to check validity, I fear we could have lots of future failures.
Lance
----- Original Message -----
From: "Albaugh, Neil" <albaugh_neil@ti.com>
To: <land-speed@Autox.Team.Net>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: Traction Control and Bench Racing..
> Joe;
>
> I agree with getting calculators & computers de-emphasized in schools.
> They have a place but not in all classrooms all the time.
>
> I'm afraid that kids are becoming skilled at pushing buttons but they
> don't fully understand the principles of what they are doing.
> Remembering a series of keystrokes is not comprehension. Many, if not
> most, students who use computers & calculators to solve problems simply
> don't know if their answer is reasonable or not.
>
> Getting a very precise answer to 6 decimal places is great, but not if
> it is not only wrong but the result is totally absurd.
>
> Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
|