Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... On May 20, 8:13 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... Yes! From decades of self-teaching, I can suggest my own solution: two or three books, written by different authors, that explain the same thing in different ways. ... Ed Huntress I've found that I need an intuitive explanation first to provide a framework to file away the subsequent formulaic ones, which killed me when I got to Laplace Transforms. Aha. Yes, I have some of that affliction too. I grow impatient with purely abstract explanations until I have a picture in my head. Unfortunately some good mathematicians have a limited ability to think visually. My first physics teacher couldn't look at a sign support on the front of a building and tell whether the diagonal brace was in tension or compression. He had to solve the algebra and see the sign of the result. A girlfriend's father who taught physics had quit chemistry because he couldn't imagine the 3 dimensional molecular structures. She was a lovely, classy lady who didn't help me concentrate on math and molecules either. jsw You're drifting, Jim. g That's another affliction we share. -- Ed Huntress |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Huntress wrote:
(...) Yes! From decades of self-teaching, I can suggest my own solution: two or three books, written by different authors, that explain the same thing in different ways. I open them all at the same time and switch back and forth. This was particularly useful to me in learning semiconductor theory many years ago, but it works for all kinds of subjects. It also helped me a great deal with the metallurgy of steel, which often is oversimplified until you can't understand what the mechanisms are. The Web often is even better at providing multiple sources, but, as we all know, it can lead you down a primrose path, too. We all appear to learn differently. I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly. It almost doesn't matter what the subject is. I find a startling qualitative difference between 'textbook' presentation (which can be obscure *and* tiresome) and this informal communication which I find clear and compelling. It's frustrating because I can't reconcile the tacit goal of the textbook with that of the newsgroup. They should both communicate effectively but in a lot of cases I get a sense that the textbook author is almost gleeful in his precise, correct and totally useless presentation. That is fascinating stuff. --Winston |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 20, 9:18*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message .. I've found that I need an intuitive explanation first to provide a framework to file away the subsequent formulaic ones, which killed me when I got to Laplace Transforms. ... A girlfriend's father who taught physics had quit chemistry because he couldn't imagine the 3 dimensional molecular structures. She was a lovely, classy lady who didn't help me concentrate on math and molecules either. jsw You're drifting, Jim. g That's another affliction we share. Ed Huntress Leading, not drifting. I had to commit to a major when I applied for college, before I really knew which science to choose. I might have switched from chemistry to mechanical or electrical engineering if I had done better in calculus. The Army put me in electronics where I stayed. However the chemistry curriculum was very broad and a good preparation for most anything. For instance I learned how to fudge a political survey by biasing the selection criteria, like calling during the day when only unemployed people are home. In the 1990's at MITRE I took night classes toward an EE degree and maintained a 4.0, including calculus. The night school teachers were practical people with day jobs who treated math as a tool, not an abstract art form. jsw |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Winston" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: (...) Yes! From decades of self-teaching, I can suggest my own solution: two or three books, written by different authors, that explain the same thing in different ways. I open them all at the same time and switch back and forth. This was particularly useful to me in learning semiconductor theory many years ago, but it works for all kinds of subjects. It also helped me a great deal with the metallurgy of steel, which often is oversimplified until you can't understand what the mechanisms are. The Web often is even better at providing multiple sources, but, as we all know, it can lead you down a primrose path, too. We all appear to learn differently. I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly. It almost doesn't matter what the subject is. I find a startling qualitative difference between 'textbook' presentation (which can be obscure *and* tiresome) and this informal communication which I find clear and compelling. It's frustrating because I can't reconcile the tacit goal of the textbook with that of the newsgroup. They should both communicate effectively but in a lot of cases I get a sense that the textbook author is almost gleeful in his precise, correct and totally useless presentation. That is fascinating stuff. --Winston Yes, it's an interesting subject when you get into it. I edited all of my wife's term papers when she was working on her master's degree in special education, and that's a big topic in her line of work. It's hard for many of us to identify with other modes of learning, but being exposed to a lot of case histories (and her students) has given me a few surprises. As for the writing of textbooks, I think it's the result of having textbooks, particularly specialized ones, written by experts in their fields who just don't have much writing experience. They tend to be pedantic, rigorous, and jargon-filled, because they worry about sounding "professional." Editing scientific papers written by medical doctors, my eyes often roll back in their sockets. Writing is like any other skill: practice, practice, practice... -- Ed Huntress |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 20, 11:30*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Winston" wrote in message ... I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly. It almost doesn't matter what the subject is. I spend so long editing the initial garbage that I spew for style and clarity and logical sequence that the session often times out and I have to copy and paste the text into a new one. That's why my posts may contain complete non-sequiturs where I missed a major change at line wrap, which isn't where you see it. I find a startling qualitative difference between 'textbook' presentation (which can be obscure *and* tiresome) and this informal communication which I find clear and compelling. It's frustrating because I can't reconcile the tacit goal of the textbook with that of the newsgroup. They should both communicate effectively but in a lot of cases I get a sense that the textbook author is almost gleeful in his precise, correct and totally useless presentation. I began posting here for informal practice when I was having enormous difficulty writing technical reports and manuals. The group may complain but they don't write my review. That pedantic, rigorous, and jargon-filled style is a valuable insider shorthand for concepts not easily expressed in standard civilian English. I just had an argument about Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in another group and found myself writing that way. MITRE offered a class on how to write technical Governmentese, which is similar to Legalese in that some words have specific restricted meanings. The instructor explained that the writing style of an organization mirrors its balance between freedom of initiative and personal responsibility, and the consequences of mistakes. He used a bank as one extreme and an artists' collective as the other. An investment prospectus and an art review are the same thing written under different rules in radically different styles. jsw |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Huntress wrote:
(...) It's hard for many of us to identify with other modes of learning, but being exposed to a lot of case histories (and her students) has given me a few surprises. I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him? ![]() As for the writing of textbooks, I think it's the result of having textbooks, particularly specialized ones, written by experts in their fields who just don't have much writing experience. They tend to be pedantic, rigorous, and jargon-filled, because they worry about sounding "professional." Editing scientific papers written by medical doctors, my eyes often roll back in their sockets. Yup. Though in my my experience, mail carriers are about the only group that have chosen not to 'bombard me with obfuscation'. I'm sure they could if they wanted to. ![]() Writing is like any other skill: practice, practice, practice... Yup. --Winston |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On May 20, 11:30 am, "Ed wrote: wrote in message ... I've set up my newsgroup reader to mark the posts from select participants like you, Ed and Pete C and Jim Wilkins, etc because I find that I can generally understand your point effortlessly. It almost doesn't matter what the subject is. I spend so long editing the initial garbage that I spew (...) You've participated in RCM long enough to know what 'garbage' is, Jim. Your posts are exactly the opposite, IMNSHO. An investment prospectus and an art review are the same thing written under different rules in radically different styles. Yes. One is a fantastical work of hyperbole that concludes with a mean surprise at the end. The other one is an art review. When we discuss SWMBO's day, she sometimes falls into 'Organizational Lingo' and I ask her to back up and explain some of the acronyms. I'm guilty too. I got a look of utter surprise from a nice lady last week when I mentioned that I was having difficulty with my 'POP client'. Shame on me. ![]() --Winston |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Winston wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: (...) ? It's hard for many of us to identify with other modes of learning, ? but being exposed to a lot of case histories (and her students) ? has given me a few surprises. I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him? ![]() Dead. He died last May 26 of last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter -- It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch. |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Winston wrote: (...) I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him? ![]() Dead. He died last May 26 of last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter Now *there* is a life well spent. --Winston |
#50
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() " wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Winston wrote: (...) I'll bet! Where is Art Linkletter when we need him? ![]() Dead. He died last May 26 of last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter Now *there* is a life well spent. A real entertainer, who didn't have to 'work blue'. ![]() -- It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stabilizing a HF Shop Crane | Metalworking | |||
HF truck crane | Metalworking | |||
hot tub -v- 60 tonne crane | UK diy | |||
Old Crane Sink | Home Repair | |||
1957 Crane Sink | Home Repair |