w********h
发帖数: 12367 | 1
who is that?
you mean conducting polymer?
if yes, I can understand why your boss 瞧不上眼.
because at that time doping is almost like a technician.
but if your boss still 瞧不上眼 after 1990's Nature Paper about LED,
I can only say your boss has no basic 科学眼光。
NIH always has more money.
just because American think Health is the most important area.
you know 基础分子生物学? admire...
so, nano- is almost 肥皂泡。
I don't your theory is applicable for Bio-field. |
m***n
发帖数: 266 | 2
不是，跟conducting polymer一点关系也没有。生物方面的。
错，知道９０年代初期搞生物的经费有多难拿吗？那时NIH的钱和现在的差距大了。
等你开始博后以后再来评价吧。
【在 w********h 的大作中提到】
:
: who is that?
: you mean conducting polymer?
: if yes, I can understand why your boss 瞧不上眼.
: because at that time doping is almost like a technician.
: but if your boss still 瞧不上眼 after 1990's Nature Paper about LED,
: I can only say your boss has no basic 科学眼光。
: NIH always has more money.
: just because American think Health is the most important area.
: you know 基础分子生物学? admire...
|
w********h
发帖数: 12367 | 3
in early 90's, the economy is not good either.
I even didn't decide to go to bio yet
【在 m***n 的大作中提到】
:
: 不是，跟conducting polymer一点关系也没有。生物方面的。
: 错，知道９０年代初期搞生物的经费有多难拿吗？那时NIH的钱和现在的差距大了。
: 等你开始博后以后再来评价吧。
|
m***n
发帖数: 266 | 4
那现在经济好吗？为什么钱还那么多？有一篇讲原NIH的头的故事和一篇为何NANO现在热
起来的文章，可以反映出上层建筑的微小变化对下面科研的巨大影响。
【在 w********h 的大作中提到】
:
: in early 90's, the economy is not good either.
: I even didn't decide to go to bio yet
|
b**s
发帖数: 589 | 5 1。这句话好像有点问题
2。如果孔小的话，有可能porosity会减小，也不是好事
3。还要考虑机械强度的问题
其实scaffold应该归到cellular materials的范畴，有很多东西可以借鉴cellular
materials的已经发展很好的理论
relationship between surface area and blood vessel density应该很早就有人作了吧
。他的新颖之处是不是在于老鼠in vivo， 我见到的研究angiogenesis 大多都是在鸡蛋
上做
的
都有SEM
density
area
with |
b**s
发帖数: 589 | 6 http://web.mit.edu/dmse/csg/recent.html#Natural%20cellular%20materials
Also called cellular solid, means materials with cellular structure. similar
to porous materials and foamed materials, |
d****i
发帖数: 360 | 7 Chemical engineering is dying. This death will come out soon, although I am in
ChE. In fact, chemistry is more like science, and try to find some theory to
fit their feet. But ChE is realy "四不象“。
or
booming
and
化
【在 m***n 的大作中提到】
:
: 那现在经济好吗？为什么钱还那么多？有一篇讲原NIH的头的故事和一篇为何NANO现在热
: 起来的文章，可以反映出上层建筑的微小变化对下面科研的巨大影响。
|
a***n
发帖数: 578 | 8
Engineering
牛
Wu liao. don't post my ID for this kind of bullshit. don't 乱扣帽子.
Did I say anything like that?
In academia, most chemical engineering is still doing science. In industry,
they are doing real engineering. You seem never enter those academia seminors.
All those engineering professors generally talk like "let us talk about
science". seldomly hear "let us talk about engineering".
It is just funny some fool claim that engineering is better than science.
Anyway, I won't initiate this ki
【在 m***n 的大作中提到】
:
: 那现在经济好吗？为什么钱还那么多？有一篇讲原NIH的头的故事和一篇为何NANO现在热
: 起来的文章，可以反映出上层建筑的微小变化对下面科研的巨大影响。
|
c*********e
发帖数: 119 | 9 It is impossible. Any new progress in chemistry need CheE to transfer them
into industry. If chemistry is still alive, chemical engineering will never
die.
in
you
to
的
【在 d****i 的大作中提到】
: Chemical engineering is dying. This death will come out soon, although I am in
: ChE. In fact, chemistry is more like science, and try to find some theory to
: fit their feet. But ChE is realy "四不象“。
:
: or
: booming
: and
: 化
|
c*s
发帖数: 2145 | 10 hehe, I was confused by other posters. Only yours makes some sense to me.
am
to
science
Langer
competition
around
faculty
best
【在 c*********e 的大作中提到】
: It is impossible. Any new progress in chemistry need CheE to transfer them
: into industry. If chemistry is still alive, chemical engineering will never
: die.
:
: in
: you
: to
: 的
|
|
|
b**s
发帖数: 589 | 11 大家都是出来混口饭吃的
谁都不容易呀
我要家财万贯的话
早就转行当电影导演去了
dududi你也不要玩自残
化学的看着出成果多
可都是玩虚的
咱们化工是要真刀真枪
不然对不起领导呀
in
you
to
的
【在 d****i 的大作中提到】
: Chemical engineering is dying. This death will come out soon, although I am in
: ChE. In fact, chemistry is more like science, and try to find some theory to
: fit their feet. But ChE is realy "四不象“。
:
: or
: booming
: and
: 化
|
t*******n
发帖数: 66 | 12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't think so. Transort is not so dificult as quantum
echnics.
am
to
science
Langer
competition
around
faculty
best
【在 c*********e 的大作中提到】
: It is impossible. Any new progress in chemistry need CheE to transfer them
: into industry. If chemistry is still alive, chemical engineering will never
: die.
:
: in
: you
: to
: 的
|
c*********e
发帖数: 119 | 13
never
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This does not mean that chemical engineering will
die.
The existence of a discipline does not depend on the degree of difficulty, but
depends on if it provides some service for society. I believe, there are many
disciplines much easier than transport, but they still exist very well. There
are also many disciplines much more difficult than quantum, but this does not
mean that quantum will di
【在 t*******n 的大作中提到】
:
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't think so. Transort is not so dificult as quantum
: echnics.
: am
: to
: science
: Langer
: competition
: around
: faculty
|
c*****e
发帖数: 238 | 14 Probably it should be, Chem people contributed much more... than chemE guys.
Even that is not well grounded. I think both thermodynamic laws were first
found by engineers, many disciplines in chemistry, including surface science
and catalyst chemistry, are triggered by the industrial needs.
Chemistry is an applied science, except for the part of theory on chemical
reactions and atomic and molecular physics, the rest are mostly related to
chemical industry and other fields, e.g. organic synthesis |
c*****e
发帖数: 238 | 15 First off, something more like science may not live longer than its engineering
counterpart.
Second, chemistry has less and less pure science content in it and is becoming
more and more application oriented.
Third, a lot of chemical engineers can switch to relevant theoretical areas,
like fluid mechanics, polymer physics, soft matter physics. And they have been
well prepared to do that. A chemical engineer can become a scientist if he or
she is willing to.
Fourth...
【在 d****i 的大作中提到】
: Chemical engineering is dying. This death will come out soon, although I am in
: ChE. In fact, chemistry is more like science, and try to find some theory to
: fit their feet. But ChE is realy "四不象“。
:
: or
: booming
: and
: 化
|
a***n
发帖数: 578 | 16 hehe. support. I never claimed which field is better or worse. just different
pathway.
I went to a senimor given by a Berkeley ChE professor (A member of NAS and
NAE) talking about thermodynamics. He complained a lot about chem guys because
Berkeley establish its ChE engieering program as late as 60s only because
Berkeley Chem dean (forgot name, seem a nobel winner) don't like Engineering.
After that guy died, the berkeley started to set up ChE department at same
year.
My point is there were a l
【在 c*****e 的大作中提到】
: Probably it should be, Chem people contributed much more... than chemE guys.
: Even that is not well grounded. I think both thermodynamic laws were first
: found by engineers, many disciplines in chemistry, including surface science
: and catalyst chemistry, are triggered by the industrial needs.
: Chemistry is an applied science, except for the part of theory on chemical
: reactions and atomic and molecular physics, the rest are mostly related to
: chemical industry and other fields, e.g. organic synthesis
|
c*******n
发帖数: 1648 | 17 I shifted to science from engineering. I learned a lot, but don't think
science any better than engineering.
For me, hard science is tough to find today anyway. Most of polymer scientists
including theoreticians have to use a lot of empirical concepts to keep
themselves alive. How many valid theory can be used in reality by strictly
developed from the first principles? How many advanced scientific experiments
don't involve trial and error stages or empirical assumptions.
For me, there is no much
【在 c*****e 的大作中提到】
: First off, something more like science may not live longer than its engineering
: counterpart.
: Second, chemistry has less and less pure science content in it and is becoming
: more and more application oriented.
: Third, a lot of chemical engineers can switch to relevant theoretical areas,
: like fluid mechanics, polymer physics, soft matter physics. And they have been
: well prepared to do that. A chemical engineer can become a scientist if he or
: she is willing to.
: Fourth...
|
c*s
发帖数: 2145 | 18 ding!
scientists
experiments
areas,
theory
【在 c*******n 的大作中提到】
: I shifted to science from engineering. I learned a lot, but don't think
: science any better than engineering.
: For me, hard science is tough to find today anyway. Most of polymer scientists
: including theoreticians have to use a lot of empirical concepts to keep
: themselves alive. How many valid theory can be used in reality by strictly
: developed from the first principles? How many advanced scientific experiments
: don't involve trial and error stages or empirical assumptions.
: For me, there is no much
|
c*******n
发帖数: 1648 | 19 Just feel the real world is much more complicated than any scientist's model
Hence the engineering may never die So everybody get their partitional market
different
because
Engineering.
guys.
science
serving
physics
chemistry
you
to
【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
: hehe. support. I never claimed which field is better or worse. just different
: pathway.
: I went to a senimor given by a Berkeley ChE professor (A member of NAS and
: NAE) talking about thermodynamics. He complained a lot about chem guys because
: Berkeley establish its ChE engieering program as late as 60s only because
: Berkeley Chem dean (forgot name, seem a nobel winner) don't like Engineering.
: After that guy died, the berkeley started to set up ChE department at same
: year.
: My point is there were a l
|
c*****e
发帖数: 238 | 20 The difference inbetween is, in doing science, you do not need to recover the
whole reality, (in certain cases, you can, say in high energy physics or
gravitational physics) one is satiated by the beauty and universality of the
model.
For engineers, the ultimate goal is to duplicate the reality or go beyond that.
any beauty or universality is irrelevant is you can achieve this goal.
Doing science is like drawing a portrait, while doing engineering is like taking
a picture, with somewhat simillar
【在 c*******n 的大作中提到】
: I shifted to science from engineering. I learned a lot, but don't think
: science any better than engineering.
: For me, hard science is tough to find today anyway. Most of polymer scientists
: including theoreticians have to use a lot of empirical concepts to keep
: themselves alive. How many valid theory can be used in reality by strictly
: developed from the first principles? How many advanced scientific experiments
: don't involve trial and error stages or empirical assumptions.
: For me, there is no much
|
