Forever knowledge. Learning may take forever.

[plchacker]

I agree with Peter, whole heartedly. I didn't see in his post that one has to be an engineer to know physics and math. Sure an engineer is exposed to math and physics, and oddly enough, most learn to use this knowledge. Some don't, but then some doctors make C's and D's in med school.

Math teaches a powerful thought process. Sure its great for some rather nifty tricks, but the thought process is far more powerful than the manipulation of numbers. I know, incomming.

Physics attempts to teach us what is, and why. Learning the laws of physics is vital if you are going to troubleshoot a machine. Gravity works every time, but many times its simply too slow.

I know engineers that couldn't program if they wanted to. I know technicians who would rather use a hammer than any other tool. I wouldn't call either by the title they wish.

I am a technician first and always. I teach, and am furthering my own education. There have been many times in the past twenty years that I wanted better math skills. Mostly because I knew that math could solve some difficult problems. Physics on the other hand, has not been so desired. There are stacks and stacks of books that can provide the details for physics problems.

Other skills have gone lacking too. Its been mentioned that kids these days want a canned answer. That is way too true, and scary. They are good at coaxing the canned answer, but are in serious trouble if faced with a new problem. They can text message at blazing speed, but can't communicate over a radio.

My spelling is terrible. It is not for a lack of trying or of thoughtlessness. I fight that battle every day. I spent some time in "special ed" and failed the first grade. Still, I can hold my own and I do in the controls world. My QPA right now is 3.8. We all have weaknesses. Its how we deal with the weak points that matters.

As far as tools go, if Gameboys replace PLC's we'll do just fine.

 

[Rick Densing]

If learning is a journey that never ends, I guess you could call it a death march. (stolen and paraphrased)

 

[Terry Woods]

"Learning" is not a death-march... however, "Life" certainly is.

No matter which route you take... that march always ends up in the same place... death.

 

[Pierre]

[font=&quot]Too many of you are obsessed with the knowledge of how to use a tool. I know this almost sounds religious, but I do know that that there is knowledge that is created by Microsoft, Rockwell, Siemens, Koyo, Omron, Schneider and Mitsubishi this knowledge is temporary and will fade away. This is unsettling because one can learn this knowledge even if it is transitory. There is knowledge of math, logic and physics that will we always be true but this is harder to learn..

Once you understand even part of the forever knowledge the rest becomes easier.

I know this forum is about PLCs but I really do see them as just a tool. You all should know that I sell motion controller but they are just a tool. I am not a hypocrite. Things are just tools. All tools are just a passing fad. Physics, math and logic are forever.

What tools will you be using 20 years from now? Will the questions posted on the PLC forum change? Will they still be about traffic lights and one button toggles? Will they still be about calculating speed using the latest high speed counter card? Are these the forever questions? I would hope the level of question would be a little higher.[/font]

Is there such a thing as useless knowledge?

Knowledge is to much a vast area to include in this narrow view of yours.

See Mr. N., knowledge is to hunderstand and there are many roads.

Knowledge is gaine by learning BEFORE and this is called school or study OR AFTER and this is called EXPERIENCE.

Knowledge establishes links between things that when seen individually have no much values but when linked have some degree of magic.

This site is often THE link.

Some of the people who come here are of the AFTER type. There also is many reasons for this.

Swimming! Is it one of your "forever knowledges"?

Get it? If not, maybee you should just stick to maths.

 

[automatic]

Peter is Right & Wrong

First off, Peter can you tell us what your typical day, week, month, year looks like? I bet its a lot different from most of us here.
If I was working in Product Development or in Academics, what you said is very relevant. Not many here are in either of those fields in my opinion.
But when you are severely constrained by time and budget limitations of today's projects and production environments, learning to use the tools is the priority.

 

[kamenges]

I think many of you are reading more into Peter's post than is really there.


Pierre, I never saw where Peter tossed around the 'u' word (useless). Completely disregarding the fact that the points in your post range much farther that the scope of the original post, Peter didn't say that knowledge of plc programming is useless. He said it is transitory. There is a significant difference.

Knowing how to program a specific plc is only of use if you understand how to apply it. Lets assume I am the best laptop-to-plc communications expert in the world. Let's also assume I know every instruction and can insert any of them anywhere in a program that I want. Let's further assume that I can put together any plc hardware group physically possible. Is this vauable knowledge? Yes. Will any of it matter in 30 years? No. Will any of that really help you in developing an application or troubleshooting the logic? Only marginally.

If I don't understand logic development, at the very least, I won't understand what I am looking at. I can use my laptop to see which inputs and outputs are on. But I can do that just as easily by looking at the lights on the I/O modules.

Let's move on to physics. If I don't know what my physical system is supposed to be capable of how will I ever know if any given machine issue is a software problem or a physical degredation issue?

Using the favorite expertise analogy in this forum, the hammer analogy, what good does it do me if I can swing a hammer faster, harder and with more accuracy that anyone else if I don't know what I'm supposed to swing at or how hard I'm supposed to swing?

Peter is right if you look at the original post objectively and don't read in anything that isn't there.

Keith

 

[Stephen Luft]

Terry,

It's too bad you believe that, no matter what route you take leads to death...because it most certainly does matter on the route you travel. Not all paths lead to death. There is one that doesn't.

Also, a very fatalistic view you have.

I am not entirely certain as to Peter's intentions, other than to say that the acquisition of knowledge is a continuous process. You never stop learning.

School may teach you some theory and how to apply it, but its true goal is to train you how to continually acquire the knowledge you require for the task that is at hand. In essence, you are building on a foundation. Do you have to go to school to become an engineer...only if you want the piece of paper that tells everyone that you have completed the course of study. There have been many self taught and college dropouts that were extremely knowledgeable, as well as successful. Bill Gates and Albert Einstein come to mind.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying...I greatly value the steps one takes in acquiring and earning their degree. However, it isn't the end to learning but the beginning.

 

[Rick Densing]

Stephen, regardless of your beliefs, all paths lead to the physical death of the body. Even if the body is returned at the end of time, it still died at some point.

My post was a joke based on semantics. I won't do it again.

 

[rsdoran]

I started the debate because I may have read more into it.

A year ago I made this post on my site; http://www.patchn.com/forum1/viewtopic.php?t=638&highlight=learning

A few recent posts about different voltages got me too thinking. Over 20 years ago I started doing full time electrical work in the amusement (carnival) industry. We used diesel generators, primarily CAT, ranging from 50KW to 1000KW at what I thought was 240v.

This is where I now realize I was "ignorant" in many ways. The actual output on the generators was suppose to be 120/208...ie 4 wire WYE. I dont remember any of our motors actually being 208vac though. The way the generator worked I would set it no load at 225vac which gave me 125vac neutral to phase. With load it would drop to 220/120, I had control of this part and that was how I set them.

Technically I had no formal education in this field in the early 80's but knew how to do this work. We even had one panel catch on fire and the leads melted all the way back into the genset...leads ended up being very short. I eventually figured out how to re-connect the wires and got the genset to work again...BUT I NOW REALIZE I didnt really know what I was doing.

I didnt know OHMS law but could calculate power requirements. I didnt understand WYE/Delta but knew about "wild legs" and how the transformers were connected. I knew how the gensets wires were suppose to connect but at that time didnt really know what WYE(star) was.

After all these years I think the "light bulb" in my head has just turned on. Its probably amazing that I didnt get electrocuted. There is still alot I dont know or fully understand but every day I understand a little more.

My next stage of development I hope is getting a better understanding of the algebra, trig and calculus used in many of the formulas. This is another area where I use something and get desired results at times but the "light bulb" is very dim...ie I dont fully understand it. PID is a good example, I have done it and made it work very well but its a trial and error method.

I am not sure there is a reason for this post, except to say to those that arent electrically inclined. Its not hard to learn and I am proof of that but BE SAFE, take your time because a mistake can be very harmful. Some of this stuff you can work with for years before you truly understand it.

I percieve "knowledge" as not just what you learn but a combination of learning and experience that allows you to "KNOW" (the keyword in knowledge) how something will/should work.

I agree that learning things like math, physics, and logic will help to develop greater knowledge BUT it is not always possible for people to learn things in the order that others have. In other words some may learn about the tool(s) before learning about all the principles involved.

I may be wrong in my conception of the post but I still think it is/was condescending to think that because you had an opportunity while young to get an education that involved learning the theories etc first and developing the knowledge you have now, THAT everyone has the opportunity to develop in the same manner.

I agree that for engineers what was stated is or probably should be true BUT the simple fact is engineers are not the only people that have to work with PLC's. This site probably has as many technicians and maintenance people as it does engineers.

Another fact is that not all engineers develop knowledge at all, this is not a bash to engineers but to those engineers (individuals) that had the opportunity and did not use it.

The more you can learn the more "knowledge" you can develop but not everyone travels the same path.

Knowing Peter I would also agree that he is probably having a good laugh right now.

 

[automatic]

There have been many self taught and college dropouts that were extremely knowledgeable, as well as successful. Bill Gates and Albert Einstein come to mind.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying...

Not misintepreting, but just adding a note: Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard and Einstein had an IQ of 200.
I am not sure it does much good for the average Joe to drop out and look up to Bill Gates and Einstein.

 

[yam785]

The most important tool of all!

The most important tool I have, I did not get in college, on the farm, or anywhere else. My parents taught it to me. It is called
"Determination". You can have all the other tools the world has to offer, but if you don't have this one, you will not get far.

 

[Terry Woods]

To Stephen, Rick, and then everyone...

Stephen,

I knew you would come back on that last post of mine. I knew what you were going to say before I posted. I considered what I expected your response to be beforehand. I purposefully let my statement stand as I did because it is unquestionably true, for exactly the reasons that Rick pointed out.

You're not gonna try to argue that death does not occur, are you?

If you open your dictionary and look up the word "fatalism", I'm sure that you will find that the word applies to YOU. Since I'm not saying, at least, not at this point, you have no way of knowing whether it applies to me or not.

To be born is but the first step on the, hopefully long, journey to death. That is a fact.

And, as long as one is on that, hopefully long, journey, it would be good to learn a few things along the way.

After that... well, that depends on the Master CPU... doesn't it?
(Since nobody knows, I wonder if HIS name really is HAL - as in... His Almighty Lordship??? or somesuch.)

And Stephen, regarding Einstein, even though he is my personal hero in the war to break open and understand the laws of physics, he really wasn't very good at math... at least, not to the degree that many assume (he was certainly better than me). He required a great deal of help with the math that led upto that little E=mc² thing.

Regarding Billy-boy... damn, doesn't that whole thing seem almost like... "A man, a plan, and a can!" His big break occurred because somebody was "hungry"! And that "somebody" was IBM. I wonder... how does that fit in the "fatalism" model? Could it be that Billy-boy was going to be the Chairman of MicroSoft whether he entered college or not?

And Rick, there is absolutely no reason for you to quit semantic jokes!

Now, regarding the subsequent remarks to the original post...

The point that Peter was trying to make was that it appears, lately (longly?), that a lot of people can't handle a particular problem unless they have access to the specific tool designed to handle the particular problem. Without that particular tool they are stuck, lost, in a quandry as to what to do next.

C'mon, let's see a show of hands, how many of you have used a Crescent Wrench (or a Spanner) as a Hammer?

Would you use the back-side of a handsaw as a hammer? Maybe. It would depend on the particular situation.

That is called improvising a solution. That can ONLY be done because one understands the basic physics behind the situation and the particular concept!

In general, I'm very much against the very idea of using any kind of canned PID routine for controlling anything. This is because I prefer to "Roll-My-Own"! I can do so, in many cases, only because I understand the basic physics behind motion control! Whether it is a moving fluid driving a moving body, or an electrical source driving a moving body, I understand the rules that govern changes through time! This is because I understand the nature of Calculus (or, The Calculus, for our friends from the U.K.).

HOWEVER... I certainly recognize that, at some point, I simply HAVE to use an external, or auxillary, controller of some kind, possibly with a damned canned PID routine built into it, to handle the particular process issue. But again, I can recognize that point only because I understand the nature of Calculus!

By the way, if for no other reason, you really should have an appreciation for Newton and his development of Calculus.

NOTE: There are points of contentions that exist, to this day, regarding similar developments by Newton's contemporaries. It appears that, somehow, a "seed" was planted by someone, among the few great-minds of the time, which caused those great-minds to consider the issue simultaneously.

At any rate, Newton, and several others, developed the basics of what we now know as Calculus.

Now... consider this... Calculus was developed (by whomever) a few hundred years ago, when Europe was barely out of the Dark-Ages. How many of you think that you are smarter than those, relatively speaking, troglodytes? Troglodytes? Troglodytes are basically cavemen.

Do you think you are smarter than a caveman?

Do you know the concept behind Calculus? Some of those "cavemen" did!

There are hundreds of Calculus formulas... however, you don't really need know any of them.

HOWEVER...
...for someone that assumes that they are smarter than a caveman, you definitely SHOULD understand the basic concept behind Calculus! Especially if you are in Automation!
(They have a special name for that, the basic concept, but it just doesn't come to mind.)

The single, primary factor, in terms of process control, and Calculus, is... TIME.

The secondary issues are... Position, Velocity and Acceleration.

Calculus describes...

Position through TIME...
Velocity through TIME...
Acceleration through TIME...
Position through Velocity...
Position through Acceleration...
Velocity through Acceleration.

I think that covers them all...

Those are generally perceived as the moving-body issues. They also apply to the changing-pressure issues, and any other dynamic situations you can think of.

If you understanding these relationships, then, in many cases, you don't need special-tools to handle the situation! This applies to a great many things aside from PID!

In a way, Peter is shooting himself in the foot. In many cases, by understanding the stuff that I described, a dedicated developer won't need the special-tool that comes from Peter's company.

This is certainly not true in all cases. As I indicated previously, there is a point where the control provided by the PLC just won't cut it! At that point, you will need Peter's special-tool!

So... the bottom line is, by understanding the laws of physics, just as the special-tool designers understand the laws of physics, YOU can create YOUR OWN special-tools through improvisation! Which is, of course, is the same thing that the special-tool designers do!

 

[Binaural]

If you understanding these relationships, then, in many cases, you don't need special-tools to handle the situation! This applies to a great many things aside from PID!

In a way, Peter is shooting himself in the foot. In many cases, by understanding the stuff that I described, a dedicated developer won't need the special-tool that comes from Peter's company.

This is certainly not true in all cases. As I indicated previously, there is a point where the control provided by the PLC just won't cut it! At that point, you will need Peter's special-tool!

So... the bottom line is, by understanding the laws of physics, just as the special-tool designers understand the laws of physics, YOU can create YOUR OWN special-tools through improvisation! Which is, of course, is the same thing that the special-tool designers do!

Well, I am a big believer in using specialist hardware for demanding applications. For example, if I have a machine with a high speed/accuracy requirement (but only for certain things), I may farm out those functions to a VSD or a high speed co-processor and keep the majority of the control software in the PLC. Knowing the limits of what a general tool like most common brands of PLC can achieve can save a lot of heartache when it comes to wringing every last bit of performance out of a machine!

 

[Terry Woods]

But then... there is the ROI thing... (Return On Investment).

And then, for those that are so inclined, there is that... I can do that, maybe even better! At the very least, if I do so, I can manage it as I wish!

 

[monkeyhead]

I'm just waiting for Godwin's Law to get invoked.