Showing posts with label engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label engineering. Show all posts
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
My reading list
Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Baghdad's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Rationale: I wasn't paying very close attention to Our Glorious Ally's Recent Imperial Adventures whilst it was happening. Partly this was because this sort of thing is difficult to piece together when you're reading it on a daily basis in the newspapers and partly because I was busy being a truculent teenager.
Anyway this seems to be the standard text on the subject and will hopefully give me a good grounding in What the Hell Happened.
The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin
Rationale: I enjoyed the discussion of theoretical physics in The Quark and the Jaguar by Murray Gell-Mann, which was published in the early nineties, and I also enjoyed The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler. I really want to find out what's happened since, and what the current state of play is as regards Big Science.
This book was recommended to me by one of my physics teachers a few years ago, and at the time was being serialised in The Times. I skimmed through it a while back in a bookshop and was impressed by the tone and content.
Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers by James F. Shackelford
Rationale: this is one of the set textbooks for the course I am (if everything works out) starting in September (there will be a few of these to come).
Manufacturing Engineering and Technology by Serope Kalpakjian and Steven Schmid
Rationale: Again another set text. I want to have a vague familiarity with the course materials well before the course actually starts. The reason for this is that I learn best when presented with a fairly long runway. I also like the opportunity to become comfortable with a particular textbook layout before using it in earnest.
The End of Politics: New Labour and the Folly of Managerialism by Chris Dillow
Rationale: This book is much discussed by the likes of Alex Harrowell and Daniel Davis and Dillow's blog is quite superb. If his book is even half as interesting and engaging as his blog then this will be a worthwhile read.
The Hidden Family by Charles Stross
Rationale: I enjoyed the previous book in this series and since I finished it the sequence has been praised and commented on by Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman. Definitely not one to miss out on.
Foundations of Engineering by Mark T. Holtzapple
Rationale: Another set text!
Mathematics for Engineers: A Modern Interactive Approach by Anthony Croft
Rationale: And again.
Management for Engineers, Scientists and Technologists by John V. Chelsom
Rationale: Same again - nothing to see here.
Traders, Guns and Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives by Satyajit Das
Rationale: I've read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books,The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness, and enjoyed them immensely. However I would like a more in-depth and technical look at all the derivatives, investments, quantitative finance, mortgage-backed securities and other paraphernalia of the ongoing economic troubles.
This book seems to get high reviews and from the brief excerpt on Amazon seem to capture this particular facet of the Zeitgeist rather well.
The Accidental Pornographer: A Story About Having a Go - And Succeeding... in Failing by Gavin Griffiths
Rationale: After reading Paul Carr's enjoyable account of trying and sort of not-quite failing,Bringing Nothing To The Party , I sought out similarly themed books. This looks to be one such in which the eponymous pornographer protagonist tries and fails.
And as an additional bonus he apparently meets none other than my favourite business antihero Felix Dennis!
Against a Dark Background by Iain M Banks
Rationale: Well, I'm reading this at the moment so I've rather jumped the gun as far as rationale goes. It is a spectacularly florid book with titanic set pieces and more Big Dumb Objects than you can shake a space elevator at. Truth be told it could easily gain from content-trimming if you prefer tighter reads, but I've always enjoyed Banks' Banksishness so it's all puppy for the fat as far as I'm concerned.
Rationale: I wasn't paying very close attention to Our Glorious Ally's Recent Imperial Adventures whilst it was happening. Partly this was because this sort of thing is difficult to piece together when you're reading it on a daily basis in the newspapers and partly because I was busy being a truculent teenager.
Anyway this seems to be the standard text on the subject and will hopefully give me a good grounding in What the Hell Happened.
The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin
Rationale: I enjoyed the discussion of theoretical physics in The Quark and the Jaguar by Murray Gell-Mann, which was published in the early nineties, and I also enjoyed The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler. I really want to find out what's happened since, and what the current state of play is as regards Big Science.
This book was recommended to me by one of my physics teachers a few years ago, and at the time was being serialised in The Times. I skimmed through it a while back in a bookshop and was impressed by the tone and content.
Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers by James F. Shackelford
Rationale: this is one of the set textbooks for the course I am (if everything works out) starting in September (there will be a few of these to come).
Manufacturing Engineering and Technology by Serope Kalpakjian and Steven Schmid
Rationale: Again another set text. I want to have a vague familiarity with the course materials well before the course actually starts. The reason for this is that I learn best when presented with a fairly long runway. I also like the opportunity to become comfortable with a particular textbook layout before using it in earnest.
The End of Politics: New Labour and the Folly of Managerialism by Chris Dillow
Rationale: This book is much discussed by the likes of Alex Harrowell and Daniel Davis and Dillow's blog is quite superb. If his book is even half as interesting and engaging as his blog then this will be a worthwhile read.
The Hidden Family by Charles Stross
Rationale: I enjoyed the previous book in this series and since I finished it the sequence has been praised and commented on by Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman. Definitely not one to miss out on.
Foundations of Engineering by Mark T. Holtzapple
Rationale: Another set text!
Mathematics for Engineers: A Modern Interactive Approach by Anthony Croft
Rationale: And again.
Management for Engineers, Scientists and Technologists by John V. Chelsom
Rationale: Same again - nothing to see here.
Traders, Guns and Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives by Satyajit Das
Rationale: I've read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books,The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness, and enjoyed them immensely. However I would like a more in-depth and technical look at all the derivatives, investments, quantitative finance, mortgage-backed securities and other paraphernalia of the ongoing economic troubles.
This book seems to get high reviews and from the brief excerpt on Amazon seem to capture this particular facet of the Zeitgeist rather well.
The Accidental Pornographer: A Story About Having a Go - And Succeeding... in Failing by Gavin Griffiths
Rationale: After reading Paul Carr's enjoyable account of trying and sort of not-quite failing,Bringing Nothing To The Party , I sought out similarly themed books. This looks to be one such in which the eponymous pornographer protagonist tries and fails.
And as an additional bonus he apparently meets none other than my favourite business antihero Felix Dennis!
Against a Dark Background by Iain M Banks
Rationale: Well, I'm reading this at the moment so I've rather jumped the gun as far as rationale goes. It is a spectacularly florid book with titanic set pieces and more Big Dumb Objects than you can shake a space elevator at. Truth be told it could easily gain from content-trimming if you prefer tighter reads, but I've always enjoyed Banks' Banksishness so it's all puppy for the fat as far as I'm concerned.
Labels:
books,
education,
engineering,
Felix Dennis,
lists,
Nicholas Nassim Taleb,
personal,
reading,
university
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Current areas of interest
Here's what I'm up to at the moment:
- Doing Open University Tutor Marked Assignments in "Data, Computing, and Information" and "Engineering the Future" courses.
- Learning how to program Python using Diving into Python and Thinking Like a Computer Scientist.
- Applying to go to university.
- Looking for a job.
- Creating a lengthy webcomic narrative.
- Blogging extensively.
- Reading The Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker.
- Reading Four Laws that Drive the Universe by Peter Atkins.
- Reading Feersum Endjinn's by Iain M Banks.
Labels:
education,
engineering,
personal,
programming,
Python
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Ahem, what I was trying to say was...
In my last post the key epiphany I was trying to get across was that I should just study whatever the hell interests me.
I've always had this vague idea I should study something useful so I can do something important like cure cancer or invent a cold fusion reactor or something.
To this end I've studied sciences and started a chemical engineering course at Manchester University.
After I discovered I didn't enjoy it that much I dropped out and have since gone through a few jobs, and spent a lot of time working in my parents' bookshop.
I believe there is more than one way to make the world a better place, and more than one way to live the good life.
I need to just study what I'm interested in (economics, philosophy, computing, business, writing and reading science fiction, creating a graphic novel, history and politics at the moment), take life a little less seriously, and set out to enjoy myself and do good in the world.
I've always had this vague idea I should study something useful so I can do something important like cure cancer or invent a cold fusion reactor or something.
To this end I've studied sciences and started a chemical engineering course at Manchester University.
After I discovered I didn't enjoy it that much I dropped out and have since gone through a few jobs, and spent a lot of time working in my parents' bookshop.
I believe there is more than one way to make the world a better place, and more than one way to live the good life.
I need to just study what I'm interested in (economics, philosophy, computing, business, writing and reading science fiction, creating a graphic novel, history and politics at the moment), take life a little less seriously, and set out to enjoy myself and do good in the world.
Labels:
chemical engineering,
engineering,
life,
personal,
philosophy
Blessed are the engineers
For a long time I've been struggling to articulate something that ought to have been obvious to me all along.
I am not an engineer.
I respect engineers. A key component of human existence is concerned with shaping matter and the physical world in ways that suit our purposes. As the arbiters of this process engineers, inventors, hackers, and designers are owed a special place in our collective consciousness. It is sad that (in the UK at least) they are not afforded the level of respect of lawyers, doctors, accountants, teachers, and even businessmen.
I am fascinated by engineering, but it is a vicarious fascination. I would rather bask in the warm glow of effective, efficient design than actually attempt to design anything myself.
So where do my interests and proclivities lie?
I have always had a hunger for understanding, knowledge too, but specifically comprehension of the world and the way it works.
So what route am I to take in order to sate my thirst for understanding?
In the somewhat crude terms of conventional academic subjects my search will probably take me through some basic science, psychology, economics, politics, and philosophy.
Because computers are are key component of the universe I occupy some appreciation for them and their functioning must also be taken into account.
These are all areas I am interested in - but how will I go about the task of comprehension?
There is another element, beyond merely identifying academic subjects, that I believe to be necessary to attaining a comprehension of the world and how it works. In fact two elements.
Time and money.
I am not an engineer.
I respect engineers. A key component of human existence is concerned with shaping matter and the physical world in ways that suit our purposes. As the arbiters of this process engineers, inventors, hackers, and designers are owed a special place in our collective consciousness. It is sad that (in the UK at least) they are not afforded the level of respect of lawyers, doctors, accountants, teachers, and even businessmen.
I am fascinated by engineering, but it is a vicarious fascination. I would rather bask in the warm glow of effective, efficient design than actually attempt to design anything myself.
So where do my interests and proclivities lie?
I have always had a hunger for understanding, knowledge too, but specifically comprehension of the world and the way it works.
So what route am I to take in order to sate my thirst for understanding?
In the somewhat crude terms of conventional academic subjects my search will probably take me through some basic science, psychology, economics, politics, and philosophy.
Because computers are are key component of the universe I occupy some appreciation for them and their functioning must also be taken into account.
These are all areas I am interested in - but how will I go about the task of comprehension?
There is another element, beyond merely identifying academic subjects, that I believe to be necessary to attaining a comprehension of the world and how it works. In fact two elements.
Time and money.
Labels:
engineering,
money,
personal,
wealth
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Nuclear Power Endorsement
There are a number of irritating conceits and half-truths in this Nuclear Power Briefing by Greenpeace on the government's decision to endorse the manufacture of new nuclear power plants.
Comments like this, from the Greenpeace Nuclear Power Briefing:
"“We need baseload, and renewables can’t supply that.”
We also need what’s known as baseload – guaranteed electricity to meet
constant demand - and Britain can generate it with low-carbon technologies like
CHP [Combined Heat and Power] and some renewable technologies like tidal, biomass, biogas and hydro.
More efficient use of fossil fuels also has a part to play."
They don't seem to offer any evidence to support this assertion. Tidal projects are very admirable but there aren't many places that lend themselves to use in the this way. The Severn Barrage is one example, but I don't know if tidal and biomass methods can account for a large fraction of our electricity consumption, yet alone a large fraction of our energy consumption.
Is it not also possible that we could use different designs of nuclear power plant, like the Chinese or South African pebble bed reactors? These address the safety concerns and concerns about productions of weapon grade enriched uranium. Because the Chinese models are intended to be "mass produced" and don't require elaborate safety measures they could also be much cheaper than conventional nuclear reactors.
Surely the solution to the problem is to increase efficiency, increase the proportion of our energy sources that are renewable and low in carbon dioxide emissions? Nuclear power helps fulfill the latter of these points.
Greenpeace seem uninterested in providing figures to support their arguments. I'd like realistic estimates of how much of our energy needs could be met by low CO2 emission renewables and how much our energy needs could be reduced before I dismiss nuclear power.
More from the Briefing:
"“If we don’t go for nuclear we’ll be dependent for gas on unstable regimes
like Putin’s.”
The real threat to our energy security is interruptions to our oil supply. However,
essentially all of Britain’s oil is used for transport and cannot be replaced by
nuclear electricity.
Much has been made of the threat of becoming over-dependent on imported gas,
particularly from Russia. Unfortunately, half of our gas is used directly for
domestic space and water heating and cannot be replaced by electricity.
More is used for industrial processes, leaving under a third that is used for
electricity generation.
Much of that third is used to generate electricity at peak
times because gas turbines can be easily switched on and off to meet short term
spikes in demand. Nuclear power stations must be run continuously. This
considerably limits the role nuclear electricity can play in reducing our
dependence on gas, from wherever it is imported."
OK. So wouldn't it make more sense if our cars and buses and trains didn't run off oil? The stuff is going to be running out soon anyway, and we have an opportunity to get in on the ground floor with hydrogen or cell-powered cars.
Shouldn't our intention be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Nuclear power stations could be set up to provide electricity at peak times and spend the rest of their time producing hydrogen via electrolysis that could be used to power transport infrastructure.
As to the problem of heating homes - surely we can come up with some solutions based on electricity and greater efficiency? Combined heat and power has a lot of potential in this area.
We're going to have to switch from an oil-based transport infrastructure to an alternative at some point.
"“We can have nuclear AND renewables.”
In reality going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Indeed, then Secretary of
State for Business Patricia Hewitt said in Commons debate on 2003 Energy
White Paper:
“It would have been foolish to announce …. that we would embark
on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have
guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both
energy efficiency and in renewables.”
Since then nothing has changed."
Huh? We're saving the world here. Can't we ditch Trident and pay for both? Again Greenpeace gives no figures and does not give any concrete evidence that we couldn't or wouldn't pay for development of both renewable and nuclear power.
I find myself in a situation where I don't know whether to believe the government or the greens. This is frustrating and counterproductive.
Comments like this, from the Greenpeace Nuclear Power Briefing:
"“We need baseload, and renewables can’t supply that.”
We also need what’s known as baseload – guaranteed electricity to meet
constant demand - and Britain can generate it with low-carbon technologies like
CHP [Combined Heat and Power] and some renewable technologies like tidal, biomass, biogas and hydro.
More efficient use of fossil fuels also has a part to play."
They don't seem to offer any evidence to support this assertion. Tidal projects are very admirable but there aren't many places that lend themselves to use in the this way. The Severn Barrage is one example, but I don't know if tidal and biomass methods can account for a large fraction of our electricity consumption, yet alone a large fraction of our energy consumption.
Is it not also possible that we could use different designs of nuclear power plant, like the Chinese or South African pebble bed reactors? These address the safety concerns and concerns about productions of weapon grade enriched uranium. Because the Chinese models are intended to be "mass produced" and don't require elaborate safety measures they could also be much cheaper than conventional nuclear reactors.
Surely the solution to the problem is to increase efficiency, increase the proportion of our energy sources that are renewable and low in carbon dioxide emissions? Nuclear power helps fulfill the latter of these points.
Greenpeace seem uninterested in providing figures to support their arguments. I'd like realistic estimates of how much of our energy needs could be met by low CO2 emission renewables and how much our energy needs could be reduced before I dismiss nuclear power.
More from the Briefing:
"“If we don’t go for nuclear we’ll be dependent for gas on unstable regimes
like Putin’s.”
The real threat to our energy security is interruptions to our oil supply. However,
essentially all of Britain’s oil is used for transport and cannot be replaced by
nuclear electricity.
Much has been made of the threat of becoming over-dependent on imported gas,
particularly from Russia. Unfortunately, half of our gas is used directly for
domestic space and water heating and cannot be replaced by electricity.
More is used for industrial processes, leaving under a third that is used for
electricity generation.
Much of that third is used to generate electricity at peak
times because gas turbines can be easily switched on and off to meet short term
spikes in demand. Nuclear power stations must be run continuously. This
considerably limits the role nuclear electricity can play in reducing our
dependence on gas, from wherever it is imported."
OK. So wouldn't it make more sense if our cars and buses and trains didn't run off oil? The stuff is going to be running out soon anyway, and we have an opportunity to get in on the ground floor with hydrogen or cell-powered cars.
Shouldn't our intention be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Nuclear power stations could be set up to provide electricity at peak times and spend the rest of their time producing hydrogen via electrolysis that could be used to power transport infrastructure.
As to the problem of heating homes - surely we can come up with some solutions based on electricity and greater efficiency? Combined heat and power has a lot of potential in this area.
We're going to have to switch from an oil-based transport infrastructure to an alternative at some point.
"“We can have nuclear AND renewables.”
In reality going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Indeed, then Secretary of
State for Business Patricia Hewitt said in Commons debate on 2003 Energy
White Paper:
“It would have been foolish to announce …. that we would embark
on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have
guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both
energy efficiency and in renewables.”
Since then nothing has changed."
Huh? We're saving the world here. Can't we ditch Trident and pay for both? Again Greenpeace gives no figures and does not give any concrete evidence that we couldn't or wouldn't pay for development of both renewable and nuclear power.
I find myself in a situation where I don't know whether to believe the government or the greens. This is frustrating and counterproductive.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Design and Writing
I disagree with nearly everything Jeremy Clarkson says, but I agree with him that there is some indefinable essence that certain items are imbued with. Good design.
Good design transcends the value it gives by way of looks and usability and becomes a joy - something to treasure and value simply because it exists. Human ingenuity overcoming the mindless perversity of the universe and converting matter into something that does something well.
Things like the iPhone, and the Nokia 6310i.
Similarly some people write so well that what they write is good simply because of the way the words are arranged and which words are used. Stephen Fry and Terry Pratchett spring to mind. (incidentally I've never been more affected by the news that someone I don't know was ill than when I read that Mr Pratchett had Alzheimer's - the content of his books speaks of a very pleasant and very wise person, it is very sad that he will be robbed of something he and so many other people enjoy so much).
Good design is to be celebrated as much as good writing. It doesn't provoke wonder so much as joy that we can make this difference and do this thing so well.
Good design transcends the value it gives by way of looks and usability and becomes a joy - something to treasure and value simply because it exists. Human ingenuity overcoming the mindless perversity of the universe and converting matter into something that does something well.
Things like the iPhone, and the Nokia 6310i.
Similarly some people write so well that what they write is good simply because of the way the words are arranged and which words are used. Stephen Fry and Terry Pratchett spring to mind. (incidentally I've never been more affected by the news that someone I don't know was ill than when I read that Mr Pratchett had Alzheimer's - the content of his books speaks of a very pleasant and very wise person, it is very sad that he will be robbed of something he and so many other people enjoy so much).
Good design is to be celebrated as much as good writing. It doesn't provoke wonder so much as joy that we can make this difference and do this thing so well.
Labels:
Alzheimer's,
consumer electronics,
design,
engineering,
philosophy,
writing
Friday, December 28, 2007
Watch this Space...
At some time in the future I'll be writing a review of The Meaning of the 21st Century by James Martin.
In it he mentions "the tragedy of the commons" and how companies should factor in the cost to society and cost to the environment of their activities, as well as more familiar expenditures.
These ideas are similar to those explored by Genichi Taguchi in the eponymous Taguchi method of industrial design.
Just thinking aloud. Read and prosper.
Slightly later: LARRY NIVEN'S WRITTEN A NEW KNOWN SPACE BOOK! Thanks.
In it he mentions "the tragedy of the commons" and how companies should factor in the cost to society and cost to the environment of their activities, as well as more familiar expenditures.
These ideas are similar to those explored by Genichi Taguchi in the eponymous Taguchi method of industrial design.
Just thinking aloud. Read and prosper.
Slightly later: LARRY NIVEN'S WRITTEN A NEW KNOWN SPACE BOOK! Thanks.
Labels:
design,
economics,
engineering,
environmentalism,
Taguchi method
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)