From the Editor
Clever Experiments & Elegant Solutions In my last editorial, I discussed a book review published in
the Wall Street Journal about the work at the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The focus of the editorial was the lab’s approach to technology development, which I termed “Big D and Little r.” In the subsequent discussion I’ve had on this editorial, the thoughts shared by Prof. John Berry, Mississippi State University, in his keynote lecture and paper, “The Estimable Value of ‘Clever’ Experiments,” presented at the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 4th
International Shaped Casting Symposium held in his honor bear repeating.
“What a concept—clever experiments and elegant solutions.”
“The inexorable growth of computational modeling in
materials science and engineering has been associated with a serious decline in the number of ‘clever,’ or genuinely useful experiments. Experimental evidence, if provided, is often second- hand and merely placed there to validate a model, thus not stimulating further study. Many established concepts in materials science have been overturned as a result of careful experiments. These experiments have often nucleated new concepts and have started a sequence of experiment pacing theory and vice-versa.” Berry went on to discuss the role of this pacing effect and gave
examples of what might be considered “clever” or at least “useful” experiments. After thinking about this initial communication and several readings of his paper, I kept returning to more fundamental questions: What constitutes a truly “clever” experiment as compared to a “useful” one or work that is just an academic exercise to obtain some funding, produce some findings and publish a paper? What is the role of critical planning and even serendipity? Besides pondering what constitutes a truly clever experiment,
I thought about whether they must be complex, require sophisticated equipment and, if properly constructed, could it result in an “elegant solution.” What a concept—clever experiments and elegant solutions. To see if I was on to something, I posed my question back to Berry and several colleagues. Below are two of the comments and observations I received in return.
“There are no unique solutions, but understanding
the basic problem is probably uppermost—but this also assumes both a knowledge of the total situation and of the relevant literature. When I look over the examples I cited, all of them involved intimate knowledge of the literature and/or the state of the art. Re: the sources of inspiration—the creativity bit—this is much more elusive. In working with
International Journal of Metalcasting/Fall 2011
students over the years, I found that the ‘brainstorming’ concept often worked well. The basic rules were being positive plus not abandoning ideas that one may have to return to later. But this is not always the case, as ‘loners’ often come up with something new and clever. Einstein immediately comes to mind, but as I mention in the lecture, he too speaks of ‘The delicacy of observation.’ This applies to both the evaluation of what went before (Newton’s standing on the shoulders of giants concept) as well as turning over the results of one’s own preliminary experiments and thoughts. I cannot help thinking that John Campbell’s critical velocity concept fits this category, although I have never asked him. However, reiterating my main theme of the ‘pacing’ effect of the theory (or model) in inspiring the experiment or vice-versa, I believe this is a powerful iteration. Finally, my point about the tendency to push good experimentation into the background in
contemporary engineering education must be redressed if this ‘pacing’ effect is going to survive and be allowed to grow.” —Prof. John T. Berry, Mississippi State University
“The master of clever experiments was Sir Humphry Davy.
His aptitude for experimental design led to the discoveries of sodium, potassium, magnesium, boron and barium. The growth of computational modeling should enhance the experiment but that is not always the case either because the experiment is left undone or the model is incomplete and misleading to the experimenter. A great example of a clever experiment is the work being done on a rapid cooling shape casting technology called ablation. That is a clear case where the experiment has pushed the models into areas that had not been considered. In that case the experiment rules, with the models trying to catch up.” —David Weiss, Eck Industries, Inc.
Several other valuable comments reinforced the themes of understanding your topic, doing your homework, careful planning and design of experiment, keep your eyes open and observe, collect data and don’t overlook anything. An emphasis must be placed upon being able to predict outcomes via some type of model and verifying the model with good experimentation. When this approach is followed, you will come closer to developing clever experiments and obtaining elegant solutions.
Thomas Prucha
Editor.
International.Journal.of .Metalcasting
AFS.Vice.President.of.Technology
tprucha@afsinc.org
5
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80