Post by thread:[EE]:: Jack Gansell on R&D

"Research is all about discovering new things" Reading a datasheet for the first time could be research in the spirit of above definition. "Development is taking known ideas and using them to build products. " No comment, but I'm sure not all guys here agree this definition. Vasile On 12/27/07, Apptech <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote: {Quote hidden}> (The great) Jack Gansell says: > > There's no such thing as R&D. > There's R, and there's D, and the two are completely > separate activities. > > http://www.embedded.com/columns/technicalinsights/204805353?_requestid=837985 > > Worth a read. > > Somewhat to my dismay, I find myself at present unavoidably > doing D & R :-(. > > > Russell > > > -

On 12/27/07, Apptech <.....apptechKILLspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > (The great) Jack Gansell says: > > There's no such thing as R&D. > There's R, and there's D, and the two are completely > separate activities. > > http://www.embedded.com/columns/technicalinsights/204805353?_requestid=837985 > > Worth a read. > > Somewhat to my dismay, I find myself at present unavoidably > doing D & R :-(. > Here in Singapore we often discuss issues since mostly "R+D" here is mostly "D" and only a litttle bit of "R". "R" is typically done in the US or Europe (not so sure if Australia and NZ have much "R" or not). It is true that research type of project is very difficult to schedule. And an almost faied project I did before was originally a development type project but the specification was set too high and that project became kind of "R" type. A full year project became two year plus. Lucikly the project did come to light even though I left the company to study in US (but I finished the hardware design and a German intern student helped to finished the firmware I started before I left). We developed the electronics module (FEW52/54/58) for the LiquidPoint T31/32. It was a joined porject between Pepperl+Fuchs and Endress+Hauser and used PIC18F872 or PIC18LF872. https://wa001.endress.com/dla/50001532011/000/00/TI375FAE.pdf The German student was really very good so Endress+Hauser decided to hire him. The power supply design was thought to be the main difficult point (FEW54 --univeral AC/DC, FEW58: NAMUR, very low current but with isolated push-pull converter) but I managed to solved it quite early in the development cycle. The main problem was the accuracy of the detection. We believed that the specification should not be that critical, but the old one (purely analog based) was said to have about 1% error in normal temperature. We struggled to solve this to no avail. Luckily finally an excellent idea from the Endress engineers solved the problem. It still did not achieve the original specification but it was deemed good enough to continue the project. With this experience, when I returned to the company and started another seems-to-be-impossible project, we spent time on the feasibility study and that project went through better in terms of electronics and firmware (not that smooth because of some mechanical and production problems). I was working for Pepperl+Fuchs, a Germany company. Quality was first. Time to market was second. Now that things seem to be changed since I worked for a different company. Xiaofan

> Here in Singapore we often discuss issues since mostly > "R+D" > here is mostly "D" and only a litttle bit of "R". "R" is > typically > done in the US or Europe (not so sure if Australia and NZ > have > much "R" or not). We used to have quite a lot. But, in recent decades the drive to "useful science" has gutted the centres of excellence which we once had. Despite this there are small bodies of scientists still doing pure science research on government grants and universities still managing. Long long ago NZers were occasionally "right up there" in international research - although they may have ended up leaving the antipodes / colonies to pursue their aims. The atom having been split and all that there's less call for that these days :-). Russell

On 12/27/07, William Chops Westfield <westfwKILLspammac.com> wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2007, at 9:46 PM, Apptech wrote: > > > There's no such thing as R&D. > > While philosophically I'm inclined to agree, he's > missing the point. At least in the USA, "R&D" is > a category of expenses with somewhat favorable tax > treatment, and as long as the IRS groups them together, > so will "the suits" and the annual reports, and > nothing the engineers and scientists say matters. > > It's probably a good thing; I would hate to have > to figure out exactly where the dividing line was. Big companies (GE/Microsoft/Intel/HP/etc) will have dedicated research companies where researchers do have more freedoms than "R+D" engineers. Some of them do not need to be under the pressure of time to market and they can develop something which will only be useful 5-10 years down the road or even seem to be useless. It seems to me US companies use "Engineering" whereas Europe/Asian companies use "R+D". The problem is now that less and less companies will be afford to have the dedicated big research labs. Singapore government is trying very hard to attract high level researchers but so far the result is not that good as far as I know. On the other hand, it is quite successful to attract high-tech industry to here. Xiaofan

> It seems to me US companies use "Engineering" > whereas Europe/Asian companies use "R+D". There is another category, which is somewhat arguably the very tail end of "D". It's 'J' aka "Just do it!". ie if you can conceive of a customer-view description of a product, then if you can work out how to make something that appears to do this then Just do it and sell it. I'm not talking about the pure snake oil products but the less technically complex consumer items that stagger onto the market with no semblance of 'development as you know it, Jim'. Longevity, reliability, efficiency, accuracy, sensible utilisation of battery (or other) energy and more (or less) is the norm. If a resistor can be saved it will be and if it can't it still will be. The market is awash with such stuff and it sells - notwithstanding that a fair bit of it will be hard pressed to stagger along from Christmas to the new year. What R there may have been has been done N copies up the stream and is long forgotten. FWIW. Russell

William "Chops" Westfield wrote: > On Dec 26, 2007, at 9:46 PM, Apptech wrote: > >> There's no such thing as R&D. > > While philosophically I'm inclined to agree, I possibly may agree that in an ideal world, things would be that way, but probably not even then. I mean, if you really separate R and D the way he does, that would mean that there is a time when you have nothing more to learn about your project. That's a pretty arrogant proposition, IMO, and not useful. For me, it's all about the right measure. Sure you need to do some research for many projects before starting, but invariably there's a point where you have to stop researching and start designing -- and invariably that point comes /before/ you know it all. (In my case, usually a project gets delivered before I know it all... :) So after finding out ("researching") the main parts, you start working on solutions ("developing"), and go back and forth as needed. Who never has "researched" data sheets for suitable products /while/ "developing" a solution? IMO any engineering activity contains both elements, to varying degrees. Even when researching for a project, there's most of the time at least half an eye on possible, practical solutions (that is, development). And when developing a project, there's usually quite a bit of detail research (about all those things where "'new' might mean new to us but not to the world" :). Gerhard

At 02:31 AM 12/27/2007, you wrote: >"Research is all about discovering new things" > >Reading a datasheet for the first time could be research in the spirit >of above definition. > >"Development is taking known ideas and using them to build products. " > >No comment, but I'm sure not all guys here agree this definition. > >Vasile This is the kind of definition I like, from the Mandarins in Ottawa:- (SR&ED stands for Scientific Research and Experimental Development) ----- Work that qualifies for SR&ED tax credits includes: * experimental development to achieve technological advancement to create new materials, devices, products, or processes, or improve existing ones; * applied research to advance scientific knowledge with a specific practical application in view; * basic research to advance scientific knowledge without a specific practical application in view; and * support work in engineering, design, operations research, mathematical analysis, computer programming, data collection, testing, or psychological research, but only if the work is commensurate with, and directly supports, the eligible experimental development, or applied or basic research. The following activities are not eligible for benefits under the program: * social science and humanities research; * commercial production of a new or improved material, device, or product, or the commercial use of a new or improved process; * style changes; * market research or sales promotion; * quality control or routine testing of materials, devices, products, or processes; * routine data collection; * prospecting, exploring, or drilling for or producing minerals, petroleum, or natural gas; and * development based solely on design or routine engineering practice. ---- Quite similar engineering work could be a part of an SR&ED effort or simply routine engineering work, depending on the intent of the project, but routine engineering by itself is never SR&ED. IME, engineers usually much more aware than accounting types of whether any technological risk is being undertaken or not. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" .....speffKILLspam.....interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On 12/27/07, Spehro Pefhany <EraseMEspeffspam_OUTTakeThisOuTinterlog.com> wrote: > At 02:31 AM 12/27/2007, you wrote: > >"Research is all about discovering new things" > > > >Reading a datasheet for the first time could be research in the spirit > >of above definition. > > > >"Development is taking known ideas and using them to build products. " > > > >No comment, but I'm sure not all guys here agree this definition. > > > >Vasile > > This is the kind of definition I like, from the Mandarins in Ottawa:- Just for your record: I'm working in R&D since 20 years, so maybe the mandarins have right. This fight about what the hell is R and what the hell want those damn D engineers which are finalising their research with a product, a technology or just a patent is really useless. :) {Quote hidden}> > (SR&ED stands for Scientific Research and Experimental Development) > > ----- > > Work that qualifies for SR&ED tax credits includes: > * experimental development to achieve technological advancement > to create new materials, devices, products, or processes, or improve > existing ones; > * applied research to advance scientific knowledge with a > specific practical application in view; > * basic research to advance scientific knowledge without a > specific practical application in view; and > * support work in engineering, design, operations research, > mathematical analysis, computer programming, data collection, > testing, or psychological research, but only if the work is > commensurate with, and directly supports, the eligible experimental > development, or applied or basic research. > > The following activities are not eligible for benefits under the program: > * social science and humanities research; > * commercial production of a new or improved material, device, or > product, or the commercial use of a new or improved process; > * style changes; > * market research or sales promotion; > * quality control or routine testing of materials, devices, > products, or processes; > * routine data collection; > * prospecting, exploring, or drilling for or producing minerals, > petroleum, or natural gas; and > * development based solely on design or routine engineering practice. > ---- > > Quite similar engineering work could be a part of an SR&ED effort or simply > routine engineering work, depending on the intent of the project, but routine > engineering by itself is never SR&ED. IME, engineers usually much more aware > than accounting types of whether any technological risk is being undertaken or > not. > > Best regards, > > Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" > speffspam_OUTinterlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com > Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > > > > -

what did you say? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vasile Surducan" <@spam@piclist9KILLspamgmail.com> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <KILLspampiclistKILLspammit.edu> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [EE]:: Jack Gansell on R&D {Quote hidden}> On 12/27/07, Spehro Pefhany <RemoveMEspeffTakeThisOuTinterlog.com> wrote: >> At 02:31 AM 12/27/2007, you wrote: >> >"Research is all about discovering new things" >> > >> >Reading a datasheet for the first time could be research in the spirit >> >of above definition. >> > >> >"Development is taking known ideas and using them to build products. " >> > >> >No comment, but I'm sure not all guys here agree this definition. >> > >> >Vasile >> >> This is the kind of definition I like, from the Mandarins in Ottawa:- > > Just for your record: I'm working in R&D since 20 years, so maybe the > mandarins have right. This fight about what the hell is R and what the > hell want those damn D engineers which are finalising their research > with a product, a technology or just a patent is really useless. > :) > >> >> (SR&ED stands for Scientific Research and Experimental Development) >> >> ----- >> >> Work that qualifies for SR&ED tax credits includes: >> * experimental development to achieve technological advancement >> to create new materials, devices, products, or processes, or improve >> existing ones; >> * applied research to advance scientific knowledge with a >> specific practical application in view; >> * basic research to advance scientific knowledge without a >> specific practical application in view; and >> * support work in engineering, design, operations research, >> mathematical analysis, computer programming, data collection, >> testing, or psychological research, but only if the work is >> commensurate with, and directly supports, the eligible experimental >> development, or applied or basic research. >> >> The following activities are not eligible for benefits under the program: >> * social science and humanities research; >> * commercial production of a new or improved material, device, or >> product, or the commercial use of a new or improved process; >> * style changes; >> * market research or sales promotion; >> * quality control or routine testing of materials, devices, >> products, or processes; >> * routine data collection; >> * prospecting, exploring, or drilling for or producing minerals, >> petroleum, or natural gas; and >> * development based solely on design or routine engineering practice. >> ---- >> >> Quite similar engineering work could be a part of an SR&ED effort or >> simply >> routine engineering work, depending on the intent of the project, but >> routine >> engineering by itself is never SR&ED. IME, engineers usually much more >> aware >> than accounting types of whether any technological risk is being >> undertaken or >> not. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the >> reward" >> spamBeGonespeffspamBeGoneinterlog.com Info for manufacturers: >> http://www.trexon.com >> Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: >> http://www.speff.com >> >> >> >> --

On Dec 27, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > William "Chops" Westfield wrote: > >> On Dec 26, 2007, at 9:46 PM, Apptech wrote: >> >>> There's no such thing as R&D. >> >> While philosophically I'm inclined to agree, Philosophy makes for interesting "models" of real-life, but after reading the article, I think it's out to lunch. A typical "lack of reality" article. What has always worked historically is: Iterative development with research mixed in. You build what you can, and you keep improving on it. Edison, Nobel, O & W Wright, etc... all students of persistence more than brilliance. Additionally, more than 50% of the articles of a historical nature that I've read on all sorts of "discoveries", all seem to have an element of "luck" involved in them, along with inordinate amounts of stubbornness or persistence on the part of the "researcher". Just tonight, I was listening to a podcast about someone looking for nitrates in the late 1800's literally walking by the richest nitrate- laden ore sample ever found every day -- which was being used at a doorstop for their lab. (If you've never read anything about the history of nitrates before chemical processes were made to manufacture them, do. It's a fascinating tale full of all sorts of power struggles. Explosives -- and thus war -- was tied at the hip with nitrates until they could be synthesized. Whoever controlled the nitrates, controlled the world's arsenals.) The lab "doorstop" was thought to be something else, until a curious chemist who wouldn't "forget about it" when told it wasn't a chunk of petrified wood (what everyone else thought it was), finally chopped a chunk off of it and tested it. It took him three months to get around to doing it. Similar stories seem to abound in all sorts of fields. Far more often than not, in my experience. But I can't prove that with any hard numbers or studies... -- Nate Duehr TakeThisOuTnateEraseMEspam_OUTnatetech.com

> Additionally, more than 50% of the articles of a > historical nature > that I've read on all sorts of "discoveries", all seem to > have an > element of "luck" involved in them, along with inordinate > amounts of > stubbornness or persistence on the part of the > "researcher". ALL new discoveries are happenstance. EVERYTHING we do is stamp collecting. Despite what a top NZ researcher once said :-). We can systematise what we have learned, and we can learn about subsets of what stamp collecting has brought us by applying the knowledge to build models of the missing parts, but by definition, what is wholly unknown cannot be found by anything except intelligently guided guesswork. We may discover an especially shiny pile of pebbles on Newton's beach and decide that there may be others nearby. We may stumble on 3 pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and deduce the shape of the top-quark piece that has to fit into one of the empty gaps, but we cannot leap into emptiness and demand that something be there as we wish it to be. To some extent the larger discovered frameworks of conservation of this or that (energy, momentum, ...) help us to fill in what appear to be the borders of the puzzle. But we will continue to be taunted by hints that the borders are but an illusion (eg by "dark matter" whenever we begin to conclude that we have gone about as far as we can go, that there is room in the world for maybe 6 (or 10 or ...) computers or that Quantum mechanics must make sense. Or mustn't. None of which has especially much to do with Jack's thesis :-) Russell

On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:51 AM, John Gardner wrote: > On Dec 28, 2007 12:52 AM, Nate Duehr <nateEraseME.....natetech.com> wrote: >> ... >> (If you've never read anything about the history of nitrates before >> chemical processes were made to manufacture them, do. It's a >> fascinating tale ... > > Hi Nate, > > Care to share your source? One of the first that piqued my interest in how nitrate mining and discovery was intertwined in world politics was : "A Most Damnable Invention: Dynamite, Nitrates, and the Making of the Modern World" "http://www.amazon.com/Most-Damnable-Invention-Dynamite-Nitrates/dp/031232913X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198866761&sr=8-8 " That link is to the hardcover version, but my copy is a paperback. Amazon doesn't show any paperbacks in stock anywhere, new or used. -- Nate Duehr EraseMEnatenatetech.com