Name an invention by an American that wasn't an innovation of something that hadn't already been invented.
Name an invention done by any non-American, that could not be described as only innovation just the way you do.
So you did think that Chinese invented paper? Nope, that is just innovation of papyrus. Guns? Ha, only bow and arrow innovated.
We can play this game for years, if you wish.
Seedload's point went over your head. Woosh!
Paper was a major series of innovations, where the source is obscure in terms of the individuals performing the improvements. Probably most or all of these improvements took place in China, but so what? It was *NOT* an innovation of papyrus, nor was it a single one step invention resulting in the high quality paper in existence at the time of first adoption by the West.
The Gun was *NOT* and innovation coming from the Bow and Arrow. It's originality is likewise (perhaps less so) obscure, but it was not a one step single inventive improvement over the bow and arrow. That which predated the first blunderbusses were probably pretty nasty and nearly useless. Who "invented" those?
I didn't indicate Tyco connectors were a problem. Connectors aren't the problem, it is their application by people who suggest it is easy to work with them.
A connector spec can be good for 99.9% of the time, but if you're talking 1 in 1000 cause a failure then you're probably talking a product recall. So if Jccarlton is working in his '90%' margin of thinking that's good enough, then he clearly hasn't had to deal with the consequent fallout of badly specced parts failing.
Jccarlton wrote:
Don't jump to assumptions that just because somebody makes a joke, they have no clue as to what they are doing.
It looks like a bloody joke to me when we get parts that have connector failures for bog-obvious reasons when the people buying the parts read something like your comment and actually believe it.
Jccarlton wrote:I have designed connectors and components for aerospace. I have specced connectors for things and places you would not believe. I have participated in writing the specs for components for a large commercial aircraft company, the one that does not live in Europe. There is very little about connectors I do not know.
OK, then, what applications would you use a pure copper crimp with a 20um tin plate on top of the copper?
I'd never dare to imagine there is very little I know about something. Again, mine was a comment cautioning against thinking you know all that you don't know. I wouldn't trust anyone that says there's very little they don't know about something.
But Coanda gave up on jet propulsion after nearly being roasted by it, and focussed on the effect that nearly killed him rather than on perfecting jet propuslion. The result is that he is best known for an aerodynamic effect capable of making a sort of flying saucer of dubious practical value, instead of making WWI the dawn of the jet age.
GB, Germany, and the US all developed jets during WWII (the US using Brit designs). But post-war, the US government funded a massive program of materials development aimed at finding materials that could handle the heat and stress necessary to make engines that could run reliably for many hours (and these materials favored the German axial-flow design). The ensuing materials revolution launched a number of industries. Nothing new, maybe. But a determination to find a way to make things work.
Last edited by Tom Ligon on Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Name an invention by an American that wasn't an innovation of something that hadn't already been invented.
I fully agree with the earlier comments about Americans being audacious that they can take something that the inventor couldn't get to work and build it [very successfully] anyway. There is no shred of doubt over that.
The only inventions that spring to my mind are those of Edison and Fessenden. Maybe Tesla's as well, if you count him as American.
Just name a US invention that wasn't predceded by a British device which did the same function?
I could go on, but it's only an ignorant dimwit talking
never mind, I'm sure you'll grow out of it. Maybe you'll begin to understand Brit sarcastic humour as well.
You do realise I'm simply sticking to character and making up for our inferiority complex in our miserable little country of backwardly-minded folks, whilst you, also, are sticking to character and getting all pugnacious and bellarous at the suggestion you're not the mighty leaders of invention.
chill... I love you guys...
Last edited by chrismb on Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jccarlton wrote:
Don't jump to assumptions that just because somebody makes a joke, they have no clue as to what they are doing.
It looks like a bloody joke to me when we get parts that have connector failures for bog-obvious reasons when the people buying the parts read something like your comment and actually believe it.
Jccarlton wrote:I have designed connectors and components for aerospace. I have specced connectors for things and places you would not believe. I have participated in writing the specs for components for a large commercial aircraft company, the one that does not live in Europe. There is very little about connectors I do not know.
OK, then, what applications would you use a pure copper crimp with a 20um tin plate on top of the copper?
I'd never dare to imagine there is very little I know about something. Again, mine was a comment cautioning against thinking you know all that you don't know. I wouldn't trust anyone that says there's very little they don't know about something.
No application I work with. Copper isn't stiff enough to hold the crimp very well and tin is a plain jane basic contact that isn't likely to conduct in all sorts places. Too cheap for me. Again I don't waste time speccing things I can buy straight out of newark for standard connections. I need that time dealing with the bulkhead high voltage into vacuum. That's where I can't get anything just standard and off the shelf, cheap.
But Coanda gave up on jet propulsion after nearly being roasted by it, and focussed on the effect that nearly killed him rather than on perfecting jet propuslion. The result is that he is best known for an aerodynamic effect capable of making a sort of flying saucer of dubious practical value, instead of making WWI the dawn of the jet age.
GB, Germany, and the US all developed jets during WWII (the US using Brit designs). But post-war, the US government funded a massive program of materials development aimed at finding materials that could handle the heat and stress necessary to make engines that could run reliably for many hours (and these materials favored the German axial-flow design). The ensuing materials revolution launched a number of industries. Nothing new, maybe. But a determination to find a way to make things work.
The US wasn't as interested in gas turbines in the '30's because the Army Air Force and NACA had embarked upon a program of super piston engines. This program was required because America needed engines that were not just powerful, but reliable enough to last though long flights. This was something that jet engine technology in the '30's just did not have. Also making a compressor that works is not an easy task. Making a high temp turbine was no picnic either.
But Coanda gave up on jet propulsion after nearly being roasted by it, and focussed on the effect that nearly killed him rather than on perfecting jet propuslion. The result is that he is best known for an aerodynamic effect capable of making a sort of flying saucer of dubious practical value, instead of making WWI the dawn of the jet age.
GB, Germany, and the US all developed jets during WWII (the US using Brit designs). But post-war, the US government funded a massive program of materials development aimed at finding materials that could handle the heat and stress necessary to make engines that could run reliably for many hours (and these materials favored the German axial-flow design). The ensuing materials revolution launched a number of industries. Nothing new, maybe. But a determination to find a way to make things work.
The US wasn't as interested in gas turbines in the '30's because the Army Air Force and NACA had embarked upon a program of super piston engines. This program was required because America needed engines that were not just powerful, but reliable enough to last though long flights. This was something that jet engine technology in the '30's just did not have. Also making a compressor that works is not an easy task. Making a high temp turbine was no picnic either.
Jccarlton wrote:
Don't jump to assumptions that just because somebody makes a joke, they have no clue as to what they are doing.
It looks like a bloody joke to me when we get parts that have connector failures for bog-obvious reasons when the people buying the parts read something like your comment and actually believe it.
Jccarlton wrote:I have designed connectors and components for aerospace. I have specced connectors for things and places you would not believe. I have participated in writing the specs for components for a large commercial aircraft company, the one that does not live in Europe. There is very little about connectors I do not know.
OK, then, what applications would you use a pure copper crimp with a 20um tin plate on top of the copper?
I'd never dare to imagine there is very little I know about something. Again, mine was a comment cautioning against thinking you know all that you don't know. I wouldn't trust anyone that says there's very little they don't know about something.
No application I work with. Copper isn't stiff enough to hold the crimp very well and tin is a plain jane basic contact that isn't likely to conduct in all sorts places. Too cheap for me. Again I don't waste time speccing things I can buy straight out of newark for standard connections. I need that time dealing with the bulkhead high voltage into vacuum. That's where I can't get anything just standard and off the shelf, cheap.
So, if you'd said there's very little you don't know about connectors when you've got an umlimited budget, then would that've been closer to the mark?
[MSimon - please provide your usual footnote to what engineering is about!!...]
There's very little wrong with tin if used correctly. You'd be quite wrong to presume it is just a cheap material. It is often the right thing. You're right that copper cannot be used as a crimp, too ductile, though you might use it as a pin. Even in aerospace applications, you do need to solder to a pin occasionally, so I've no idea what plating you'd use for pin soldering, then, if you're not using tin?
The issue with tin is that it doesn't plate copper. You have to flash with nickel first.
You don't seem to get it. And that would be hardly surprising because if Americans understood the difference between innovation and invention,. then maybe some of them would think 'hmm.. maybe I need to invent something'.
Not to worry. You invent. Americans will figure out how to profit from it.
And thanks for the Magna Carta thing. Nice invention. Much to our profit.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The FET. And it was undeveloped. Until Americans invented the bipolar transistor. Then they figured out the FET and tried to patent it. No dice. Prior art.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
