Re: [SI-LIST] : What's your favorite Screwy SI Concept?

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Michael Vrbanac (vrbanacm@swbell.net)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2000 - 13:50:21 PST


Adrian,

I appreciated Bradley's response because I have often been in the position
of creating an answer which has put my employer in an advantageous
position and discussing even the "textbook" engineering might have been
enough to give it away. This is as much to say that some ideas are really
ripe for picking and nobody else notices them but in spite of their sometimes
incredible simplicity, they are "proprietary". And that is true if you move
to another employer. In this case, the data is proprietary ....unless, the
new employer wants to say... understand the 20H rule ... and funds the
research, then the new work would establish the new data set as proprietary
for them.

If I am therefore holding something that I know is like that regardless if
my employer realizes it or not, it is my ethical duty to protect my employer
if for no other reason than I promised I would do it. If I hadn't done this
for years, I certainly could have written a huge number of papers and made
myself "famous". So ... few know who I am nor know the impact of what
I have done over the years as an indirect product of my work. I know it
and can see some of it even just now developing in many discussions on
this forum. Obscurity is perhaps the price for ethics. But then, I can be
proud of whom I see in the mirror every morning and I think that is more
important .... and BTW, I can just forget the lawyers altogether.....

Michael

p.s. Bradley.... hang onto your integrity... its the only thing that can't
be taken away from you unless you give it away....

Adrian Shiner wrote:

> It is one thing to disclose the intellectual property of your ex employer.
> it is another for lawyers to try & gag you on discussing textbook
> engineering and general experience which supports your ability to put food
> into your mouth and a roof over your head! Come and live in the UK, the
> taxes might be high but we have a certain understanding of lawyers and their
> ilk.
>
> Adrian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bradley S Henson <bhenson@notes.west.raytheon.com>
> To: <si-list@silab.eng.sun.com>
> Sent: 10 January 2000 15:55
> Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : What's your favorite Screwy SI Concept?
>
> >
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > For those who have not been through one of those exit interviews with the
> > corporate lawyers, it may seem like a convenient excuse. However, I can
> testify
> > that those lawyers *don't* mince words about what can and cannot be
> disclosed
> > upon termination. When in doubt, keep silent on the subject. Inconvenience
> is a
> > small price to pay considering the havoc those folks could cause to your
> > personal pocketbook.
> >
> > Brad Henson,Raytheon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael Vrbanac <vrbanacm@swbell.net> on 01/08/2000 07:36:14 PM
> >
> > Please respond to si-list@silab.eng.sun.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To: si-list@silab.eng.sun.com
> >
> > cc: (bcc: Bradley S Henson/RWS/Raytheon/US)
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : What's your favorite Screwy SI
> > Concept?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lee,
> >
> > I can explain it and have but I won't as I explained before. I have had
> > laboratory
> > evidence but could not retain it as it was left at a previous place of
> > employment.
> > Sorry! That was in accordance with my work agreement. And, of course, as
> > many have said to me before... "that's such a convenient excuse!" Again,
> sorry!
> >
> > As a consolation for those disappointed, I will give only one final hint.
> For
> > those
> > who love simplicity, it indeed is. For those who love the complex, an
> important
> > piece of it can be seen in a section in a highly revered tome written by a
> well-
> > respected author but it is not in a form that you would normally expect.
> > After seeing that, and considering its implications, compelling supporting
> > evidence
> > can be seen in many texts. ( Those of you who already know, don't give
> > it away! You'll spoil the learning experience for everyone else.) Ok, one
> more
> > hint and its the very last... and this I will credit to Michael Chan....
> think
> > of WHY
> > someone might have needed to do something like this, what they needed to
> > accomplish, and where it just might make some sense.
> >
> > Have fun! <grin> Hopefully, the search might prove fruitful for many
> looking
> > for it
> > even beyond learning about the 20H rule and where it really applies. And
> > maybe...
> > just maybe, we can "unscrew" one "screwy rule" AND we might just all be
> > in agreement about it!!!
> >
> > Once you figure it out, you will probably agree with me when I say that
> the 20H
> > rule
> > may not provide significant benefit for every application in every design
> but it
> > does have its uses.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > Lee Ritchey wrote:
> >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > If you cannot explain the 20h rule, do you have any laborator evidence
> to
> > support it?
> > >
> > > Lee
> > >
> > > Michael Vrbanac wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, Michael,
> > > >
> > > > That is my point exactly. The "screwy rule" was driven by some need
> > > > at some time and place and more than likely be viewed negatively in
> > > > an industry segment where the need to use it is much less. The funny
> > > > "human thing" to do is to therefore deny the existence of anything
> we've
> > > > never seen or attempted to simulate.
> > > >
> > > > As I have, over time, attempted to "thoroughly explain" what I believe
> > > > the 20H rule is "doing and what it is meant to do", I never seem to
> get
> > > > folks to accept that explanation for whatever reason even though there
> > > > have been designs which have benefitted from it. So I don't offer
> > > > explanations anymore. Now I just let folks figure it out for
> themselves.
> > Its
> > > > a whole like trying to argue about "grounding methodologies" with
> someone
> > > > who is intently opposed to your position. You can't possibly create
> any
> > > > scenario to convince them otherwise. So the discussion is useless
> > especially
> > > > in a public forum. Perhaps you might understand what I mean if I
> > > > asked you to defend exactly why it wouldn't work and let the process
> > > > go from there.
> > > >
> > > > I was serious about the point about being careful of what one claims
> as
> > > > "non-applicable" or "nonsense" from a global sense (i.e. all
> disciplines and
> > > > sub-disciplines) unless it clearly violates Maxwell Equations. By
> doing
> > > > so, it amounts to a claim of infallibility both in reasoning and test
> > vehicle
> > > > methodology and measurement. That's a pretty arrogant position and
> > > > I try to stay away from that. The best anyone can say is that, based
> on
> > > > their testing and particular methodology and measurement, the
> principle
> > > > will or will not be applicable for that particular situation.
> > > >
> > > > Again, the creation of some of the "screwy rules" came from a need to
> > > > address a certain type of problem and it was apparently successful
> > > > enough to gain a widespread audience in its application. Was it all
> > > > hoopla or was it a practical solution for a particular problem that
> many
> > > > of us still don't understand? Either one is possible.... you must
> decide.
> > > >
> > > > Michael E. Vrbanac
> > > >
> > > > "Chan, Michael" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My 2 cents is to find out how a "screwy rule" being drawn out. A
> > > > > rule ( no matter it is good or bad ) has to come out from some
> initatives
> > > > > and/or motivatives. I don't think a rule can come out from nowhere.
> I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > a rule based on solid fundamental concepts cannot be wrong by that
> much
> > and
> > > > > any derivative from real world observations can be corrected and/or
> > > > > improved.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe building some test structures in order to see whether a
> rule
> > will
> > > > > break or not cannot help to try to understand how a rule being drawn
> up
> > and
> > > > > whether a rule make sense or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, take the famous " 20H RULE " as a case. Can anyone,
> > especially
> > > > > the originator(s) ( if there is some ) of the 20H Rule explains the
> > physical
> > > > >
> > > > > concepts behind how this rule is being drawn up?
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael Chan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
> > majordomo@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
> si-list,
> > for more help, put HELP.
> > > > si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list
> > > > ****
> > >
> > > **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
> majordomo@silab.eng.sun.com.
> > In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
> > > si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list
> > > ****
> >
> >
> > **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
> majordomo@silab.eng.sun.com. In
> > the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
> > si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to
> majordomo@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
> si-list, for more help, put HELP.
> > si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list
> > ****
> >
>
> **** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majordomo@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
> si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
> ****

**** To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majordomo@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
****


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 20 2000 - 11:34:39 PDT