GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
I waited a full day for the reply to be taken out of "moderation" then posted this to their first reply, and now this one is awaiting moderation. I'll post it in this thread, so that regardless of what the NCSE does I don't have to worry about this having been a total waste of time to write:
| Quote |
Thomas Thurman: Gary;
I saw this piece today. As I mentioned; "science" live in our repair shops but the techs don't recognize it for what it is. If you read Case of The Missing Throttle Plate, you'll find the whole scientific process, including researching the literature, collaboration and publication of findings. Just a twinge in education and this tech would have called his process what it is; Science.
http://www.underhoodservice.com/think-l....lusions
---------------------
Awesome article Thomas!
In the 90's I bought 1981 Thunderbird with chrome racing wheels and stiffened up suspension that looked great with air shocks, for $1000. The previous owner replaced its V6 with a new V8, which made an emissions circuit nightmare, even with the Chilton manual with schematics to work from. After studying the science that makes for a clean burning engine I discovered that it was an antiquated emissions system that was said to not work all that well even when brand new. The color of the tailpipe residue and exhaust odor it was a very dirty burning engine, which flunked emissions tests real good when it needed a new inspection sticker. It was then a learning marathon to try putting something together. After buying a vacuum gauge I found that was too low, even with all the emission circuit hoses were well connected. My theory was that the vacuum switches and actuator diaphragms reached their age limit (or were about to) and had internal air leaks, which in turn cause the whole system to not work at all. So I tried a racing trick I learned about in a book on building a high performance engine, which was to simply go direct from vacuum tree to EGR actuator. The engine perked right up, real nice, and pass emissions inspection!
After removing the bird's nest of vacuum hoses and components I had a nice clean motor to work on. In time my wife and I installed Edelbrock air intake, cams and obligatory chrome valve covers to indicate what's under them, and with an inexpensive timing light I keep it timed just right. After the transmission went I had them beef up the torque. The motor did well, and outlived the rest of the T-Bird that eventually has ball joint and 100 other issues from the rest of it not having been made to last for two motors, and my wife adding a few dents that would need over a gallon of Bondo to fill, with new door.
Years after that the next challenge of the same type was to get a HP5988A mass spectrometer (with parts machines and spares) running.
In that case it was vintage 1977 and the computer system that came with it needing replacing with a personal computer and interface that costs thousands of dollars after buying the database with spectral peaks of chemical compounds, to go with the software. The NIST had a free online service to one at a time download the peaks for a given chemical compound, and free software that reads a file that I wrote a program to write, which controls the mass spectrometer voltages and takes readings.
As with my having to study how an internal combustion engine works I was again almost over my head in “science” but I did get the mass spectrometer running real nice again. And no kidding the adrenaline rush of the long startup procedure was tremendous. I was rushing around making sure the large diffusion pumps with hot circulating silicone oil don't “boil up” from low or sudden loss of main mechanical roughing pump vacuum (that gets the pressure low enough for a diffusion pump to circulate out remaining interfering gas molecules) which happened but thankfully the silicone oil fumes safely vented outside. Another time it helped blow the main 60 amp fuses and all the electricity in the house was gone, then at that moment a friend of one of my daughters came over to visit! There was smoke coming out of the fuse box out the door then I rushed to replace them to get the roughing pumps back on again. Thankfully its fail safe valves did their job, manifold chamber held enough vacuum to cool down without boil up, and it only took a few minute fusebox pit stop to be back in the race again!
You found a good example of what science looks like, in everyday use, which has a stereotypical idea attached to it that does not really equally respect science in automotive related technology, which is still getting more scientifically demanding all the time and intelligent fully self-driving vehicles are not even showing up in repair bays yet. You'll then need some knowledge of how cognitive systems work. Where one is equipped with speech recognition and personal AI assistant there might then be a human/machine bond that will make bringing a car to a repair shop more like bringing part of the family to a modern hospital where doctors roll in complicated diagnostic machines to hook them up to as the poor thing motionlessly repeats the same distressing diagnostic messages over and over again. Maybe by then it will become a little more obvious how science intensive the occupation actually is.
Even without knowledge of how the system works almost anyone can feed a machine blood or tissue samples then push the right buttons. That job is right away considered “science” and in a forum like this one can qualify them as more of an expert in scientific matters, even though they could not even fix something easy that went wrong with their own car where you gave them the scientific instrument(s) needed to quickly diagnose and repair the problem. Of course not all “scientists” would be as lost. I know one who performed his own car repairs on a classic that needed lots of attention, which gave him enough practical experience to have a good idea of all the “science” that ends up getting into.
There are master technicians who to be certified need to demonstrate scientific knowledge that would qualify them as a “scientist” somewhere else, such as when maintaining motor systems for space vehicles instead of motor systems for roadway vehicles. Human scientific fascination with outer space might be partially related to why we see the two differently.
Academic institutions also show off their well credentialed “scientists” in the same way repair shops show off their certified “master technicians” to the public but that is not as scientifically glamorous sounding. It's not a matter of writing out the chemical formula for all the chemical reactions, which is recognizably “science” even though where someone memorizes all the reactions on through resonator then out the tailpipe that does not make one an expert in modern roadway vehicles, who might not off hand know the chemical formula of everything but be able to conceptualize the reactions happening inside the engine and what compounds smell like and their chemical properties such as flammability, corrosivity to various materials, viscosity at various temperatures, etc.. It's still science but more intuitive and gained from experience that makes a technician remove the right bolts to replace the right gadget then like magic it's back on the road again, not something figured out then the findings are published in a science journal.
It might help to make better use of the phrase “automotive science” or “diesel engine science” whenever possible, but without being a sales pitch. An expert should need to have experience that makes them able to visualize what is happening in all of the reaction areas of the motor. You confidently say that they have an excellent understanding of the chemistry and electronics, know the required sciences.
Whether that would qualify them as a “scientist” or not might be debatable, but I think I could get used to that way of thinking. Academia conditions most to think of the status as an entitlement for spending long hours in classrooms for credentials, which in my opinion is one way to gain recognition for having some scientific knowledge but not the only one. Self-learners stay going on their own and sometimes have to learn fast while on the job or never make it in the industry they are in. In my graphic arts occupation it's also now highly scientific. A company needs people good at diagnosing and rebuilding electronic and mechanical systems of the industry, on top of the day to day chemistry of various processes used in modern printing equipment. But likewise it's not like working with/for a college or university with a credential system where after enough years of in-house training and experience receive a diploma for the science areas mastered, which in turn on paper makes them a “scientist”.
This is an education related problem. A definition like this one is commonly taught:
“the scientific method is the way scientists learn and study the world around them.”
http://www.biology4kids.com/files......od.html
Definitions that do not limit the scientific method to “scientists” still leave the impression that it is still true, as though the detail was left out but to be assumed. There is no explaining that it is inherent behavior we are born with, how an infant learns. After learning how to grasp objects like a spoon they soon learn how to open their hand to drop it on the floor. This normal scientific experimentation has upset many moms and dads through the ages who have had to pick it up for them so they can repeat the experiment. Not knowing why they do that even makes parenting harder.
From my experience with how science is taught in school and around the internet the scientific method is something that was supposedly discovered by “scientists” then refined through the years, not something inherent to our behavior that is best understood by knowing more about how the human brain works. This would be a major paradigm shift, twinge in education, but after putting long thought into all this the tech you linked to was clearly following the scientific method therefore I have to agree he could have called his process what it is; Science.
|
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
