James L Adams—People and Products

Different and More are Not Necessarily Better

I have had an excellent and long relationship with Apple’s operating system 10.6.8.  I had vowed to stay with it as long as possible.  But it is difficult to stay with something you like when dealing with the digital world, because digital hardware and software are changeable with little relatively little expense, designers of it are often motivated by the glory of “new” features, businesses like to boast about new products in their marketing, and any fool can add stuff to the internet.  I unfortunately had a camera failure and had to get a new back (the digital information could no longer be read).  My new one is capable of wi-fi, which I thought would be useful, but it didn’t seem to like 10.6.8, so I finally bit the bullet and upgraded all the way to 10.10, which is of course being trumpeted by Apple as the epitome of all operating systems.

 I used to play the piano a lot, and clearly remember the agony of learning to do so.  But one day, after many hours of learning and practice and years of playing, I realized that I could just play it. It would do what I wanted it to do without conscious attention to the mechanics involved.  Driving cars, shooting basketballs, typing, riding bicycles, most human activities requiring some amount of skill follow the same trajectory.  In a minor way, so did operating system 10.6.8 for me.  I could just use my computer!

 Since I was able to delay changing so long, I have a good view of what has happened to Apple’s desktop operating system over time.  The answer is both a great deal, and not very much— new and useful features, but lots of trivial change in fonts and format, features that I do not want that would distract me from my work, inability to deal with several of my old applications (Photoshop), and a propensity to organize data for me in ways that have no meaning for me. I am presently trying to get rid of several of these new “features”. Fortunately I discovered the “notifications” box in system preferences, so I could disable several distracting notices at once.  And I am sure I can figure out how to get iPhoto to open by just showing me my photos and albums rather than classifying them into “events”, that not only have no meaning to me, but are not events at all.  But I will have to go back to a bit of learning to “play the piano again”, and I don’t want to just because someone decided the keys could be better arranged,  And unfortunately, I don’t expect the music to be any better.

 Granted that the digital world is improving over time, but such things as computers and the internet are tools to help people, and tools should honor the learned skills of the users.  The digital world is filled with people who cluster around places such as the offices of Wired Magazine, Singularity University, and computer companies such as Apple and Google, and believe in constant change, constant growth, and the increasing dominance of digital technology.  Technological determinism in its pure form!  Digital technology is marvelous and bringing us valuable capabilities, but it works for us, not the opposite.  I have pushed creativity and innovation for most of my life as a teacher, author, and engineer, am constantly amazed at our capability to do new and wonderful things, am a fan of the results of it, and have been involved in many very rewarding creative and innovative activities.  But guess what —creativity and innovation need to be controlled.  I will talk about that in a future post.

Quality, Economics, and Jeff Marrick

A book I recently read—Jeff Madrick’s book entitled Seven Bad Ideas, subtitled “How Mainstream Economists Have Damaged America and the World” (see suggested readings)—  along with the excellent Ken Burns TV series on the Roosevelts,  have gotten me again thinking about economic theory and its effect on products.  Mainstream economists disagree, of course, but there is wide acceptance of theories that conclude that economics alone can result in good societies.  One is Adam Smith’s theory of the Invisible Hand – that buyers and sellers will converge on the ideal price for a good or service with no input from outside agencies such as governments.  Another is Says Law, which states that supply creates its own demand and has been around for two hundred years, even though major economists, such as Keynes, have put major effort into demonstrating that it does not work in modern society.

 A more contemporary figure that was extremely influential, and who subscribed heavily to pure capitalism with minimum intervention from government, was Milton Friedman, who Madrick vilifies repeatedly in his book.  He also emphasizes the many positive effects of government funding (massive support of research and development) as does the Roosevelt series vis-à-vis such programs as the Works  Progress Administration (WPA), which produced major infrastructure works as well as supporting artists, environmental work, and other socially valuable projects and products that would not have happened if dependent on pure capitalism itself. 

 From my position at Stanford University in Silicon Valley, it seems as though a great number of students and people are captivated with entrepreneurship and start-up companies.  That is good, but most of the start up companies I hear about and see are focused on making money for the founders and investors, and may or may not add a great deal to society.  The sale of WhatsApp, a then small software company, to Face Book for $19 billion certainly had economic ramifications, but what does it add to the quality of life in the U.S.?  On the other hand, many highways and other roads in California seem to be falling apart, and I meet few people who talk about starting a company to repair roads.  Neither does pure capitalism seem to care much about preserving the environment, global warming, or aid for the poor. 

 Faith in the market and such things as supply and demand curves simplify thinking about money and perhaps national economies, but modern economies are not simple.  Madrick points out that perhaps different cultures and countries in various stages of development may need devices that bias the market—tariffs, local incentives, and other such things  that are anathema to those who believe in the “free” market .  And products may be economically successful, but perhaps not important.  I was reading this weekend about two apps that tell the owner how often she/he use their smart phones each day. Economically successful, and  perhaps an aid to breaking overly time-consuming habits, but ????????

 

The Oxy-Acetylene Tank Set

Welding with oxygen and acetylene gas (the fuel) has been around for many years—at least since 1903, when two French engineers, Edmond Fouche and Charles Picard, put their name on it. By using pure oxygen rather than air the flame burns at a high temperature (about 3,500 F) and easily melts common metals such as steel and aluminum. Welding is typically done by causing the two pieces of metal to melt and feeding the resulting “puddle” with a “filler rod”. 

 Before oxy-acetylene welding, metal was welded by heating in a forge and then pounding the two pieces together. But oxy-acetylene provided a much more convenient and controllable way to weld metal.  Of course, any temperature hot enough to melt steel can be used to braze and solder, and by increasing the oxygen pressure (it is usually about twice the acetylene pressure) steel can be easily cut.

 I like to weld, and was taught to weld both with oxy-acetylene, and with an arc, or stick welder.  In this form of welding, a consumable electrode of metal is used to strike an arc with the metal to be welded.  The material from the melting electrode combines with the molten area on the material to form the weld.  Stick welding is used in situations where larger amounts of material are to be involved and electricity of the proper voltage is available.

 Now there are more sophisticated approaches to welding.   Tungsten intert gas, or TIG, uses a non-consumable tungsten electrode to draw an arc and melt the metal and a filler rod, and an inert gas atmosphere is used locally to prevent oxidation of the metal.  TIG units have a foot pedal to vary the voltage of the current, making for much closer control.  And there is MIG (metal inert gas) in which the consumable electrode in wire form is automatically fed into the weld at a chosen speed and voltage.  This can be done in an inert gas or with a flux included in the wire.

 And there are many more. I must admit I usually use TIG and MIG equipment rather than oxy-acetlyene, but my trusty oxy-acetylene tank set, consisting of the two tanks of gas with pressure regulators, a double hose to conduct them to the torch, and miscellaneous tips, lighters, goggles, etc. (see photo)  still gets a great deal of use.  For one thing, I love it, because it is the first kind of welding I ever did, and is extremely flexible.  But also it can be used for endless purposes other than welding, brazing, and soldering— from heating rusty nuts and bolts so that they will unscrew, to re-warming coffee, to removing stubborn paint, to partially burning new wood to make it match older wood, to melting a large number of materials other than metal, to showing off for my grandchildren and repairing things for my wife. 

I also like it because to me, fire is endlessly fascinating.  Why should combining two gases, one of which we need for life (oxygen), and one which comes from dropping calcium oxide into water (acetylene) and lighting the mixture cause such a hot flame? And unlike electric welding (and  heating), such things as extension cords and generators are not required.  It is just you and the fire performing miracles. The oxy-acetyline welding set is an old, but still high quality product.