Fred Marshall wrote:> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:P7OdnVqefvOZNkffRVn-vA@rcn.net... > > > > > > Yes. And I had taken steps to cover my ass before the thing went down. > > > > Jerry > > Jerry, > > That only proves that you're smarter than I am.... I took steps to make > sure the reasons for likely failure were known - with the objective of > finding solutions, workarounds, new approaches, etc. Little did I know that > some of them were only resolvable if there was extremely good luck ... > somewhat similar to the old joke: [a miracle occurs here].You did your job, then, didn't you... In the ideal world, that sort of stuff is done prior to committing to a project delivery. In a less than ideal world, it has to wait until after committing. The main point is that somebody sorts out the problems and prepare to deal with them. Rune
FIR filtering in the Fourier domain
Started by ●July 8, 2005
Reply by ●July 20, 20052005-07-20
Reply by ●July 20, 20052005-07-20
Randy Yates wrote:> "Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> writes: > > [...] > > Despite this, I was asked (well, ordered) by my then boss, with support > > > > from may then former boss, a professor in underwater acoustics, to make > > > > a general passive tracking system based on one stationary sensor. > > > > I resigned from the job. > > These are some amazing stories, Rune. Thanks for sharing them.Nope, not amazing. Those stories are fully representative for my day-to-day experience for the last several years. Rune
Reply by ●July 20, 20052005-07-20
Fred Marshall wrote:> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:P7OdnVqefvOZNkffRVn-vA@rcn.net... > >> >>Yes. And I had taken steps to cover my ass before the thing went down. >> >>Jerry > > > Jerry, > > That only proves that you're smarter than I am.... I took steps to make > sure the reasons for likely failure were known - with the objective of > finding solutions, workarounds, new approaches, etc. Little did I know that > some of them were only resolvable if there was extremely good luck ... > somewhat similar to the old joke: [a miracle occurs here].Not necessarily smarter, maybe just better placed. RCA Labs had what they called a "rotating training program" that was expected to last 3 or four months. (Nobody told me.) The idea was to work in about three departments to see how one might fit in. I was happy as a pig in a lake of swill. My favorite assignment was in the semiconductor research lab, where I demonstrate how to dice wafers by scribing -- standard with thin one ones -- that were thought to be thick enough to require milling. I also determined that the instability we had been seeing in early (1962) CMOS parts was reversibly caused ion migration. (But I missed turning that into PROM. Ouch!) When I got to the Semiconductor lab, the Director, Bill Webster, who had been a group leader there, had just returned from a stint as Chief Engineer at the semiconductor plant. The Labs was organized with an overall president (who was also a Corporate vice president and a member of the RCA board of directors) and between seven and nine Laboratory Directors, who each had deputized several Members of the Technical Staff -- my title -- as group leaders. The group leader who was my nominal supervisor -- he did occasionally tell me what I couldn't do -- became part of the administrative staff when, years later, Webster was promoted to president. My relationship with both remained easy for the rest of my 25 years there. The official working hours were 8:00 to 4:30, with 3/4 hour for lunch. I usually arrived at 9:00 and left between 6:00 and 6:30. The president knew that, and sometimes called me at my desk after six. Leaving out the whole middle. My director had come to the labs from a manufacturing division with a machine he had designed to adjust the yokes on color CRTs. It appeared to almost work, but never quite did. It fell to me to make it work. There was a problem, though: his ego. Whenever I suggested a modification, I was being radical. Whenever I explained why a feature wouldn't work, I was being negative. I was supposed to fix it without changing it. Things were getting tense. I went to Webster's right-hand man (with whom I'm still occasionally in touch) for advice. Should I ask for a transfer? I didn't want a transfer. I had created the group I worked in. It served as a consulting design group to the entire laboratory and many of the manufacturing divisions. (The lake of swill that I had dug for myself!) The advice was to talk to my director and explain my dilemma. Leave him to suggest a solution (like let me off the project). Looking back, I think he was being set up. He did indeed let me off the that project, but he also put in the paperwork to have me fired. At the next Directors meeting, with all nine of them around the table, Webster pulled the termination paper out of his folder, slid it across the table and asked, "What's this all about?" (His secretary told me when it was all over.) My director explained that I had become ineffective and surly, and no longer productive. Webster responded, "If you don't want him, I'm sure others here do." Seven hands went up. The matter was dropped. Two weeks later, I had a new director. A story like that can boost a guy's ego, even if, as I suspect, I was a pawn. I know for a fact that at least five of those seven hands were honestly raised. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 20, 20052005-07-20
Tim Wescott wrote:> Rune Allnor wrote: > > > > Andor wrote: > > > >>Jerry Avins wrote: > >>... > >> > >>>Here, I tend to take questions at face value and try to answer them. As > >>>a consultant, I try to get at the root of the question: what prompted > >>>it? > > > > > > Hmmm.... I've seen you say that many times before, and it's the kind > > of thing I've tried to do myself. But in my experience, seeing past > > the customers requestes and to his needs, is interpreted by the > > customer as a claim of his incompetence. > > There are ways of presenting things diplomaticaly so you lessen the > tendency for it to be so interpreted. Here's a few: > > 1. Let your surprise at being so lucky as to have stumbled onto the > answer show. Even if your surprise was 20 years ago when you were an > undergrad, show it now.I find it hard. "Hey look! One needs two equations to solve for two unknowns!" That's the level of "revelations" I am talking about. No kidding.> 2. Give them an out; let them blame their teachers (oh, they just > _never_ teach that stuff in school you have to learn the hard way -- > wanna see my scars?).Difficult. I have my worst problems with people who are my seniors by 20 or 30 years. I haven't had trouble with many of the younger people. You are right, though, it *was* fun to teach after I had "been at war" a couple of times, and I *did* enjoy "scaring" the students. But they didn't encounter anything in class (or at the examination... <diabolic grin>) that they wouldn't risk facing in their first job in the business.> 3. "Well, I'm just a math geek who can't pick up women: but while I've > been failing socially look at what I found out about our problem".The "I am just a humble engineer who do not understand such mind- boggling ideas" is nice, although it is usually recognized as the sarcastic irony it (most of the time) is. The "mad scientist" card is way more fun, but ought to be used with extreme caution. Ought. I think I tend to overdo it...> > Which, of course, it is. > > Not necessarily. Folks can be competent in one area and not another, or > they can just get blindsided.True. Still, I see a consistent pattern, in and out of my own research field. I once encountered a guy (PhD, various high-profile research institutions) who had worked since the 1970ies with radars, and claimed he could measure the thickness of a conductive material by means of radar. An intro text on EM propagation will show that the attenuation in even slightly conductive materials is so large that such measurements can not be done at the wavelengths relevant in this case. To get the measurements to work, this guy "calibrated" the relative refractive index of air to a value of 1.4. My high-school physics text says 1.0003 is a better value. All hell broke loose when I pointed out this slight irregularity. Yet another guy with impressive certificates and decades of experience, but who did not grasp of even the simplest concepts in his field of expertise.> I never assume that just because I'm > really good at a few things means that I'm morally superior to any > particular fellow human.Agreed.> The truely incompetant will not accept that,I'm not sure I understand. My theory is that those who are incompetent, know the situation either conciously or subconciously. When they face somebody competent, they try to compensate by finding easy strongpoints that they will defend, regardless of whether it is feasible or not: "I want you to design a sonar that distinguishes between salmon and trout. It's useful and I want it."> of course, but most people understand this instinctively.The competence vs moral? Of course.> > It's a highly dangerous route. One would be very lucky (well, stupid) > > to follow it through, into old age and retirement. > > > Your comments on Norwegen culture follow. It is, indeed, a narrow and > rocky path. In the US, however, it can lead to success if you gain a > reputation for being rightSo innocent, so naive... Here, credits for success is never given; blame for failure only seldom. Such concepts would indicate that people are "different" and we can't have that, can we. Norwegian culture. For better or for worse. As for academics, "failure" means somebody had an idea that didn't quite hold water. I've been in R&D institutions for more than 10 years, and I have yet to meet a scientist that admits he was wrong. Engineers have to do that every once in a while, when their building collapses or whatever. No scientist I know have never admitted to be wrong. Hence, the concept of "credits" is absurd, since it implies the concept of "failure". Besides, whenever I might have been succesful, it was because of plain vanilla common sense, so it would not be possible for me to claim credits anyway: "There is swell and surface waves at sea of 5 m or more magnitude, that must be accounted for when estimating positions with 1 m accuracy." I can't claim credits just because some people fail to see what most would consider to be obvious.> and you never, ever, try to take credit where > it isn't dueI don't...> (letting things slide when others take credit for your work > doesn't hurt, either).I believe most regulars on comp.dsp do that...> I trumpet my own successes, but I always try to > trumpet other's as well -- "Gee, I was really stuck until Phil asked > about XXX, then I realized that I could do a Prsnorble transform on the > system grap-knurl and by golly his idea is mathematically provable!".Sure, I'm making the effort. I don't know if such credits are reckognized and appreciated at all times, but I'm certainly making the effort. Rune
Reply by ●July 20, 20052005-07-20
Rune Allnor wrote: ...> Besides, whenever I might have been succesful, it was because > of plain vanilla common sense, so it would not be possible for > me to claim credits anyway: "There is swell and surface waves > at sea of 5 m or more magnitude, that must be accounted for when > estimating positions with 1 m accuracy." I can't claim credits > just because some people fail to see what most would consider to > be obvious.Don't belittle yourself. Seeing the obvious when nobody else does is a most valuable talent. I was once denied a patent because the way mt invention used $.25 worth of parts was "too obvious", I got the patent on appeal when I cited a $250 circuit board, then in production and widely sold, to do the same job with a lower top speed because of its greater complexity. I have another patent on the acoustic imaging equivalent of an optical trick invented before I was born. Nobody before me had made the connection. ... Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 20, 20052005-07-20
Rune Allnor wrote:> As for academics, "failure" means somebody had an idea that didn't > quite hold water. I've been in R&D institutions for more than > 10 years, and I have yet to meet a scientist that admits he was > wrong. Engineers have to do that every once in a while, when their > building collapses or whatever. No scientist I know have never > admitted to be wrong.That should be "No scientist I know have *ever* admitted to be wrong."> Hence, the concept of "credits" is absurd, > since it implies the concept of "failure".Rune
Reply by ●July 20, 20052005-07-20
Jerry Avins wrote:> Rune Allnor wrote: > > ... > > > Besides, whenever I might have been succesful, it was because > > of plain vanilla common sense, so it would not be possible for > > me to claim credits anyway: "There is swell and surface waves > > at sea of 5 m or more magnitude, that must be accounted for when > > estimating positions with 1 m accuracy." I can't claim credits > > just because some people fail to see what most would consider to > > be obvious. > > Don't belittle yourself. Seeing the obvious when nobody else does is a > most valuable talent.No, it isn't. I think you have got the general impression of the world as I see it from my posts in this thread. It would have been nice to just for once be able to work with people who see the world more or less like I do, and where one can play up to overcoming an actual, feasible challenge. There is a time and a place for numerous repetitive patient explanations of very basic facts of nature, as I have enjoyed doing in the company of my niese and nephew of three and four years olds.> I was once denied a patent because the way mt > invention used $.25 worth of parts was "too obvious", I got the patent > on appeal when I cited a $250 circuit board, then in production and > widely sold, to do the same job with a lower top speed because of its > greater complexity. I have another patent on the acoustic imaging > equivalent of an optical trick invented before I was born. Nobody before > me had made the connection.That took some skills and insights on your part, didn't it. I only apply the basic principles as I learned them in DSP 101, acoustics 101, and data analysis 101 etc. You might call me old-fashioned, but if an idea or technique doesn't fit with the basics, I become very, very sceptical. Some times that scepticism pays off. For instance, I was shown a measurement of a refracted wave that had been interpreted as an inverted sound velocity profile in the sea floor, i.e. that the sound velocity in the substrate was smaller than that in the sediments. The theory of refracted waves is very clear in that refracted waves can not occur in inverted velocity profiles. So something was wrong, either the measurement or the interpretation. Choosing to accept the measurement (which by no means was an obvious thing to do), I was allowed to see exactly where and how the measurement was taken. Seeing a map over the area and knowing how the measurement was made, made it clear to me why the measurement turned out that way, and why several other measurements taken in the same are were troublesome. Again, the key was to enforce the basic principle that "refracted waves don't occur in inverted velocity profiles." To put it in perspective, my point of view is comparable to an astronomer working from the conjecture that "the earth is not flat and the moon is not made up of cheese." Failing to see that point about refracted waves would make you flunk the exam in acoustics 101. It's the most basic mathemathical analysis of physical acoustics, that is done solely on the basis of the reflection coefficient at an interface between two half-space media. Of course, pointing out such basic flaws in the interpretation (as I did), doesn't gain me much favour with the people who did the analysis. Who happened to be an assorted selection of my (then) present and former bosses. Similarly, I did a simple study of the performance of certain passive sensors in shallow waters. It's very basic stuff, taking the most basic equations of acoustic propagation and inserting them into the simplest available equations for how the sensors worked, while simplifying a bit here and reformulating a bit there. Which is what engineers do when analysing systems. The analysis showed very clearly how these sensors work in shallow waters and why, and also what to do to improve the performance. It took me a couple of weeks to do the analysis, but no one had, as far as I know, done anything similar since 1966. The analysis was, in fact, so simple and the results/suggestions so obvious that I felt very embarrased for not seeing those results in a mere two days instead of two weeks. The scary part is that no one apparently have tried that simple analysis for the last 40 years. Well, at least I have seen no trace of anything similar in neither articles or textbooks published after 1966. In fact, when I now read textbooks in such subjects, I find it amazing how so many people can avoid the analysis for so many years. It is such an obvious question to ask. There must be some kind of mass psychosis, or something. Again, pointing out the potential of improvement did me no good, as the people who ought to have had the most interest in what I did, had been in the business since around 1966. I guess they took it as some sort of personal criticism, in one way or another. Still, I am sure the improvements that are simple to implement, would greatly improve the performance of these types of sensors. Seeing the obvious is a curse when one can not act upon the obvious insights, and instead have to quarrel over the most basic stuff over and over again. If I could wind back time 20 years, I'd rather be an electrician or a plumber instead of a "scientist". Rune
Reply by ●July 20, 20052005-07-20
Rune Allnor wrote: ...>>I was once denied a patent because the way mt >>invention used $.25 worth of parts was "too obvious", I got the patent >>on appeal when I cited a $250 circuit board, then in production and >>widely sold, to do the same job with a lower top speed because of its >>greater complexity. I have another patent on the acoustic imaging >>equivalent of an optical trick invented before I was born. Nobody before >>me had made the connection. > > > That took some skills and insights on your part, didn't it. I only > apply the basic principles as I learned them in DSP 101, acoustics 101, > and data analysis 101 etc. You might call me old-fashioned, but > if an idea or technique doesn't fit with the basics, I become very, > very sceptical. Some times that scepticism pays off.No. If I had researched the problem, I would have found the state-machine solution and ended up buying the %250 board. Since a library search is more odious to me than cogitating, I re-invented the solution. Except that it turned out to be an invention.> For instance, I was shown a measurement of a refracted wave that > had been interpreted as an inverted sound velocity profile in the > sea floor, i.e. that the sound velocity in the substrate was smaller > than that in the sediments. The theory of refracted waves is very > clear in that refracted waves can not occur in inverted velocity > profiles. So something was wrong, either the measurement or the > interpretation. > > Choosing to accept the measurement (which by no means was an > obvious thing to do), I was allowed to see exactly where and how > the measurement was taken. Seeing a map over the area and knowing > how the measurement was made, made it clear to me why the measurement > turned out that way, and why several other measurements taken in > the same are were troublesome. Again, the key was to enforce the > basic principle that "refracted waves don't occur in inverted velocity > profiles." To put it in perspective, my point of view is comparable > to an astronomer working from the conjecture that "the earth is not > flat and the moon is not made up of cheese." Failing to see that > point about refracted waves would make you flunk the exam in acoustics > 101. It's the most basic mathemathical analysis of physical acoustics, > that is done solely on the basis of the reflection coefficient at an > interface between two half-space media. > > Of course, pointing out such basic flaws in the interpretation (as > I did), doesn't gain me much favour with the people who did the > analysis. Who happened to be an assorted selection of my (then) > present and former bosses. > > Similarly, I did a simple study of the performance of certain passive > sensors in shallow waters. It's very basic stuff, taking the most > basic equations of acoustic propagation and inserting them into the > simplest available equations for how the sensors worked, while > simplifying a bit here and reformulating a bit there. Which is what > engineers do when analysing systems. The analysis showed very clearly > how these sensors work in shallow waters and why, and also what to > do to improve the performance. It took me a couple of weeks to do > the analysis, but no one had, as far as I know, done anything similar > since 1966. > > The analysis was, in fact, so simple and the results/suggestions so > obvious that I felt very embarrased for not seeing those results > in a mere two days instead of two weeks. The scary part is that no > one apparently have tried that simple analysis for the last 40 years. > Well, at least I have seen no trace of anything similar in neither > articles or textbooks published after 1966. In fact, when I now read > textbooks in such subjects, I find it amazing how so many people can > avoid the analysis for so many years. It is such an obvious question > to ask. There must be some kind of mass psychosis, or something.No course requires that it be taught, so no professor assigns a grad student to it.> Again, pointing out the potential of improvement did me no good, > as the people who ought to have had the most interest in what I did, > had been in the business since around 1966. I guess they took it > as some sort of personal criticism, in one way or another.Are you sure you presented it with enough pizazz and diplomacy? Submitting a patent application for an improved sensor -- or a novel way to use existing sensors -- might have gotten somebody's attention.> Still, I am sure the improvements that are simple to implement, > would greatly improve the performance of these types of sensors. > > Seeing the obvious is a curse when one can not act upon the obvious > insights, and instead have to quarrel over the most basic stuff over > and over again. If I could wind back time 20 years, I'd rather be an > electrician or a plumber instead of a "scientist".I disagree. The curse is either the idiots who choose to be blind, or your own inability to coax them to see. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
