Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

Robo-calls abuse Technology

Back in September my household received more than one political robo-call per day for a time.  Even though some were from organizations I support, they all blended into one huge annoyance.  Not a single one of those calls moved me (except to vent on my blog).  What do you feel when you get a robo-call?  The telephone should not be used this way.  These calls interrupted family life.

If anybody has any research data that shows recorded telephone calls are effective, I doubt the wisdom of the research on two grounds.  First, the ends do not justify the means.  This type of message does not merit the immediate interruption of family life that a telephone call causes.  There is no tornado nearby!  No friend is calling to arrange a birthday party.  Second, trying to speak to hearts and minds by making robo calls is plainly inane regardless of any data.  If you insist that robo calls work, then use your robo-caller for a higher purpose—for evangelism.  Maybe you could get Beth Moore, Tony Campolo, or some other notable person to record a convincing call to conversion and salvation.

Imagine followers of all faiths acting like this!

The robo-calling this fall has been inane indeed.

 

(Comments are closed due to spam, but you can find me on Facebook and put a comment on my wall if you have a Facebook account.)

Image from Animation Playhouse.

Julia Child’s 100th Birthday & Engineering

Today would have been Julia Child’s one-hundredth birthday.  (She lived from August 15, 1912 to August 13, 2004.)  She is the author of Mastering the Art of French Cooking and the host of the PBS TV show, The French Chef and several other TV shows about cooking. In honor of her birthday, PBS released a You Tube video titled “Julia Child Remixed.”

I’m old enough to recognize that Child’s singing voice on this video sounds much like Julia Child did on those 1970′s era TV shows she hosted.  How did they make Julia Child sing for this this sweet (pun intended!) video?  My guess is that they used a product like Antares Auto-Tune to alter the original sound track of some video clips from her TV shows.  Consider the variety of the technologies needed (other than cooking!) to televise and record those original TV shows, to convert them to a digital format, to artfully edit them into the remix, to make her talking voice into a singing voice, to add a synthesized backup band, and to wing this over the web to your eyes and ears.  If that intrigues you, then you might be interested in engineering!  All of these technical tasks fall squarely into the arena of electrical and computer engineering.

My doctoral research was in signal processing.  Thus it was a delight for me to discover this “remix” tribute, not only because I once enjoyed her TV shows when they were originally broadcast, and not only because I love food (Bring on the roasted potatoes!), but also because I enjoy the type of engineering work that made this retrospective “remix” possible, even if Auto-Tune is not my particular project.  I just thought I’d bring that to your attention!

(Comments are closed due to spam, but you can find me on Facebook and put a comment on my wall if you have a Facebook account.)

Image: from the linked You Tube Clip

 

 

Right to Privacy: Is It A Liability?

The fourth amendment to the US constitution (part of the Bill of Rights) states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On July 20, 2012 during a midnight showing of the film, “The Dark Night Rises,” James Eagan Holmes, 24 years old, opened fire killing at least 12 people and injuring 58 others.  The news stories that followed this tragedy can hardly prevent each of us from pondering the state of gun laws in the USA.  Also, just as after some previous similar tragedies, we communally wonder if there were any signs that the shooter needed psychological help.  Did anyone observe any signs that we might have been able to use to avoid this needless violence?

I have a thought to offer on this topic.  Cell phones now have GPS units in them.  It is technologically possible to track every cell phone and thus the locations and interests of most people, to sift through all their messages, to link this information to credit card transactions by name, date, and address, to link this with web searches (Bing, Google, Yahoo, etc.) banking, academic, and medical records, and to link this with social networks (Facebook, Google+, etc).  A whole lot about each of us is stashed in the “cloud.”  It is just not organized.  We could rather easily set up a national data-mine to sift though this information.  It would then be possible to flag a Ph.D candidate with $26000 in grant support who is spending lots of money on guns and munitions and withdrawing from his studies.  Except our constitution prevents it.  Not just that, we are so accustomed to privacy, that our sense of ethics prevents it.  So I ask. . .

Is the right to privacy a liability in a technological society?  I’m starting to wonder which is worse, big brother or privacy?

Here are some opinions from others on this matter:

From IEEE Spectrum’s Inside Technology Blog, “Is Your Cell Phone Snitching On You?

Robert J. Sawyer promoting his novels: “Privacy: Who Needs It?

(Comments are closed due to spam, but you can find me on Facebook and put a comment on my wall if you have a Facebook account.)

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Transistorized Transformation


This is the world’s first transistor radio model.  The retail price was $49.95 when introduced on October 18, 1954. Almost 100,000 were sold in the first year of production.  It is the model TR-1,  designed by Texas Instruments and Regency Electronics and manufactured by Regency Electronics.

 

That transistors “revolutionized the world” is a banal truth!  What might be some of the more interesting truths we can discover beyond that?

What now seems to be a banal truth was not so at the time.  In the 1950′s Transistors were “interesting,” but not clearly, “revolutionary.”  The transistor was invented in 1948.  It’s widespread use and influence did not develop until about 20 years later, in the late 1960′s and early 1970′s.  The transistors of the 1950′s were pretty crappy not only by today’s standards, but also in comparison to the devices they were supposed to replace, vacuum tubes.  Whereas the tubes of the 1950′s might have a 10% or maybe a 20% variance in a specification such as gain, transistors of that era might have a variation of over 200%.  Many engineers dismissed the new transistors as being impractical, just a lab curiosity.

An engineer at a company called Regency found a way to use the transistors of the era to reliably make AM transistor radios in an assembly-line process[1].  Here lies my first observation of a more interesting truth.  New technologies often enter the market at the bottom end, in low-cost applications, like an AM radio, rather than in high-end applications, like a computer.  The low-end applications serve as a demonstration of the technology.  The companies that dominate the market tend to ignore the new entrant since they do not have the facilities or expertise to economically compete in the low end of the market.  Low profit margins and little future growth potential make the new entrant seem very marginal and irrelevant.  (Look where AM radio is in popularity today!)  But that could be a mistake because as the new technology becomes more fundamentally practical it will experience exponential growth up the market chain.

In the 1950′s RCA was a big player in the business of main-frame computers.  Remember the RCA Bizmac line of computers?  With at least 5000 vacuum tubes in each computer and a 1950′s era price of at least 1.6 million dollars how could you forget?  But computers of that era were not mass produced[2].  The Bizmacs have been forgotten and the mass production of the Regency TR-1 is part of the reason you undoubtedly have never heard of a Bizmac before reading this.   (I’ve written more about RCA here.)  On the other hand,  have you heard of IBM computers?  They were transistorized and mass produced of course.  Thomas J. Watson realized that the mass production of the Regency TR-1 AM radio was important.   He also realized that he had to do more than start a project to design a transistorized computer.  He had to change attitudes and culture within IBM.  When engineers at IBM continued to advocate the use of vacuum tubes in computers, Watson simply gave them transistor radios [1].  That is apparently what what it took to get them to start designing computers with transistors.

You have to experience a new technology to really appreciate it.  New ideas are so foreign when they are new that they are difficult to understand in an emotional way.  This tends to hide the value of new ideas.   Experience is key to understanding new ideas.

At first new technologies are used to simply replace old technologies.  For example, transistors replaced vacuum tubes.  But later, the new technologies make other things obsolete.  Vacuum tubes require a device called a transformer to match the tubes to a loudspeaker.  Just like the transmission in a car converts the torque and speed of the engine to something appropriate for the differential and wheels, a transformer converts the voltage and current of a vacuum tube to match the needs of a loudspeaker.  The TR-1 radio pictured above had a matching transformer in it because the transistors were being used like tubes were.  Once tubes were replaced with transistors, the next largest component in the radio was the matching transformer.  At first engineers attempted to miniaturize it.  But they quickly discovered that transistors were not exactly like tubes, and that transistor circuits could be designed to directly drive the loudspeaker.  Viola!  No more matching transformers in radios.  Cost, weight, size, and battery life were all further improved.  All the companies that made matching transformers for audio applications lost a large segment of their market. This continuing type of innovation based on previous innovations is persistent.

Now we have personal computers, laptop computers, smartphones, Facebook, Youtube, and more.  In a sense all of these have been enabled by transistors.   At their heart, these new technologies represent the collective desires of our society.  They reflect our collective culture.  All of them represent a continuous developmental process of human desire.  Every one of us has little choice but to be influenced by these innovations.  (Do you still listen to your music on CD’s?  It is getting hard to do.  Sales of CD players are so low that many stores do not sell them any more.  Soon CD’s will go the way of Vinyl LP’s.)  But looking forward, we do have choices in developing the future.  We can innovate.

In summary,

1.)  New technologies often invade the marketplace at the bottom end first, seeming to offer little, but they demonstrate something fundamentally new in a practical way.  (There are exceptions.)

2.)  One needs to experience new technology to really appreciate it.

3.)  New technologies grow slowly at first, but eventually transform much more than could ever have been initially anticipated.

4.)  One can hardly choose to ignore technological innovations, but we can lead with innovation in order to influence our culture.  Technology is one of the means by which we as a society influence culture, that is, the means by which we influence what others care about.

References:

[1.]  http://www.regencytr1.com/Regency_Early_Years.html

[2.]  http://www.dvorak.org/blog/ibm-and-the-seven-dwarfs-dwarf-six-rca/

Photo credit: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regency_TR-1.jpg

What Calculator is Best for Engineering?

Short answer:  Look here.

Details follow. . .

Five years ago a common question that I would get about this time of year was, “What computer is best for Engineering?” The question usually came from parents who intended to give a computer to their recent high-school graduate who was headed to Dordt for an engineering major. Amazingly, after five years my recommendations made back then are still up-to-date! Don’t believe me? There is a link at the end of this article so that you can see for yourself.

Now I’ll try to give a timeless answer to the similar question, “What calculator is best for Engineering?”

Really fancy “graphing” calculators are available.   I have one, an HP 28S.  The TI-83 and TI-89 are more popular and excellent calculators too.  But the interesting thing is that you will not be allowed to use those calculators on some important tests.  “What tests?” you might ask.  Just the Fundamentals of Engineering and the Principles and Practice of Engineering tests, which you might need to get your professional license!  Oh. . .  also the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) which you might need to get into graduate school.

Dordt College has no control over the policies regarding calculators on the tests just mentioned, but we want our graduates to do well on these tests.  These policies have been getting stricter as time goes by.  It can be quite a distraction to have to deal with an unfamiliar non-graphing calculator while working on one of these tests if all you used in college was a graphing calculator.  Therefore the Dordt College Engineering Department has adopted a new policy regarding calculators.  Beginning in the fall of 2012 only calculators permitted at the NCEES engineering exams will be permitted at tests in the EGR100 (freshman) and EGR200 (sophomore) level engineering courses at Dordt College.  Beginning in the fall of EGR 2013 the policy will apply to all engineering tests at Dordt College.

You might wonder if requiring these inexpensive non-graphing calculators would impair the educational experience.  To the contrary.  They will enhance the educational experience for at least two reasons.  First, calculators that can do many fancy things also have a learning curve associated with using the advanced features to advantage.  We occasionally grade papers where it is obvious that an advanced feature (for example symbolic algebra) was used by a student who really did not understand the feature or the method.  Then the outcome of the calculation is unrecognized bogosity, which is of course not good for education.  Second, when graphs or other advanced features are really needed, computers are a better way to do it.  Learning to do these tasks on a computer is much better than doing them on a calculator with a small low-resolution screen and a unique style of programming that translates to nothing else.  Learning about computer programs like Labview, Mathcad, Matlab, and Sage is much more worthwhile than learning how to use a graphing calculator.

The non-graphing calculators that the department will be requiring for tests (you can use whatever you want for homework) are not stripped-down four-function items.  These calculators support all kinds of trig, exponential, logarithmic, power and root, statistical, polar, and many other functions.  (Some also support complex number calculations.)  They are easier to use well and rapidly than a graphing calculator. (Unless you never use the graphing features!)  And, they cost much less.  When the faculty discussed these matters at a department meeting prior to adopting this new policy, we unanimously agreed that these calculators are actually more appropriate to a quality education than the graphing calculators that are banned from the professional and graduate exams.  There are good reasons why the national organizations ban graphing calculators.

My favorite?  For what it is worth, I’m hooked on HP calculators because I used to work there.  The retro-styled HP 35s is the way to go IMHO.  You can get a used one in perfect condition if you look around on the Web.  The engineers who use them one time on an NCEES test sometimes sell them cheap.  (Ahh…, but you won’t get mine!)  Don’t take my word for it though.  Look around and you will find some so-so reports on that HP model.  It is just not a perfect imitation of some earlier HP calculators.  And it is not really worth the money either in comparison to the other calculators on the NCEES list, unless of course you prefer HP for some reason!

Here is another way to look at it.  All the calculators in this list are very similar.  The main features that distinguish one of these calculators from another are a multi-line display (HP has it!) and complex number support (HP has that too!).  Those are features you can use in your work at Dordt and on the tests.  At these low prices, why not look for both of those features in one calculator?  That’s probably about one third of the calculators on the NCEES list.

If you are already familiar with a TI calculator, you might prefer a TI-36X Pro model.   Check that.

There you go!  Paying attention to what you need to do, rather than all the things you could do, is more important than the hardware.  Oh yeh. . .  I said that in so many words more than five years ago here!

Christian Progress

My last post was titled, American Progress.  I posted it for your consideration when I stumbled upon Gast’s painting and could not help but remember the Apple “silhouette” series of advertisements.  What might Christian Progress be?  What might that mean for an engineer?  It is the freedom to make progress in the Christian sense of the word here at Dordt that gets me excited as I teach!

In answer to these questions I offer first a reference to a favorite book of mine, The Christian Mind, by Harry Blamires.  You can read an outline of the book online.  Or better yet, get the book (purchase or from a library) and read it.  (It is unrelated to Blamires’ book, but there is also a famous sermon from 1853 by John Angell James titled, Christian Progress.)

We live in a world of conflict between good and bad.  We depend completely on Christ’s mercy to provide salvation from the bad and knowledge of the good.  That even includes provision of a sense of living a meaningful life every day.  It motivates us to do work in which we strive to glorify God.  Figuratively, Christians desire to work to create vessels that take people through time toward their final home with God.  (Blameries, p73).  Our work, and our entire being, has a religious orientation.  Contrast that to “American Progress,”  as you might find taught in a state university.  There you find a self-sufficient world.  All that matters or ever will matter is what we experience, what we humans can sense.   American progress elevates people to the roles of gods and final judges over everything that is.  Ironically, then there is no final authority of even purpose for life.

All things were created by God and and are under Christ’s rule.  (Hebrews 2:8, Psalm 8:6, 1 Corinthians 15:27)  Although everything we do and design is bound for obsolescence and death, what we do for the Lord will matter.  “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”  (1 Corinthians 14:54)  Think of the salvation and purpose we find in Christ!  That’s Christian progress.

The photo of the crosses is from http://christianbackgrounds.info/the-cross-sunshine/. The image of the dancer is a frame captured from an Apple ipod video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwq12bL_GPQ.)

 

American Progress

The painting above, by John Gast, dates from 1872. Here Colombia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers.  She holds a school book and she is stringing telegraph wire as she sweeps west.  The different stages of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation. Native Americans and animals flee in terror.  Note that Colombia is bringing light, as witnessed on the eastern side of the painting as she travels towards the darkened westward side.

(The text is adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny.  The photo of the painting is from http://japanfocus.org/-Bruce-Cumings/3687.  The image of the dancer is a frame captured from an Apple ipod video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwq12bL_GPQ.)

 

How To Design A Bullet-Proof Vest


The old-fashioned way to test a bullet-proof vest.


This circuit board is too complicated to test the old fashioned way.

It used to be that you could just build something and try it to see if it worked.  That is, of course, the ultimate test.  Unfortunately, the consequences of failure are getting pretty serious these days!  Do you think the scene above was the first test performed on the bullet-proof vest?  What tests might have preceded the scene above?

Two things recently reminded me of the changing role of “quality assurance” testing.  Although we care about quality as much as we ever did, the way quality is achieved is changing.  I was reminded of this recently by an article in the Chicago Tribune and by our experience on a recent senior design project.   A senior design project I advised this spring produced a working prototype on the first try.  The first, “ultimate test” was a success.  Working first prototypes are getting more common because we are taking different pathways to quality than we did in the past.

The senior project was an “Improved 8VSB Demodulator.” The project was sponsored by Sencore.  You don’t need to know what an “8VSB Demodulator” is if you can just appreciate that the circuit board is complex.  (I do not have a photograph of the “Improved 8VSB Demodulator” board to publish, but it looks similar any circuit board and is about the size of the one shown above.)  These days the ultimate test—try it and see if it works—is really only good for public relations purposes. That’s probably also what the “ultimate test” of the bullet-proof vest was about too.  Real engineering testing is usually preceded by a lot of analysis and simulation.

In case of a failure, the “ultimate test” usually yields poor-quality information and at great cost.  Computer analysis and simulation tools have become so good that the results they give are full of useful detail and can be preformed faster and at less cost that the “ultimate test.”

Does this matter?  It matters because “hands on” engineering is moving into a virtual world.  Engineers get great satisfaction when things work, and especially when they work the first time.  This leads us to a preference for “using our hands” to build and test things.  Our first instinct and desire is to fire up the the milling machine and welder and make something to test.  That’s what I mean by, “hands-on” engineering.  There will always be a place for that kind of work.  But more and more, doing this in the real world is becoming the slow and expensive way to the satisfaction of a well-designed, reliable, and successful engineering result.  It is more important than ever to work holistically by not neglecting the mathematical and numerical aspects of a project. A virtual world can bring out some other aspects as compared to the real world.  A holistic approach to engineering requires attention to the simulations and analysis that can be done in a virtual world.  As computers become more capable, simulated environments also become more important, less expensive, and more like “hands on” engineering.

In the case of the 8VSB Demodulator project the students simulated the circuit, created a 3-D computer model of the circuit board to check for parts placement and fit, did various computerized design rule checks to look for poorly placed circuit-board traces, and so forth.  These virtual world aspects of the project can be credited with the success of the “ultimate test” of the 8VSB circuit board.  Although the 8VSB Demodulator project was an electrical engineering project, the same need for good analysis and simulation is true in other fields of engineering too.  For example, this Chicago Tribune article about designing  automobiles.

Photo credits:

Testing Bulletproof vest.jpg, U.S. Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/npc2007009504/

Circuit Board Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sbus_cards.jpg

Enterprise Software—No Savior

This afternoon some of us here at Dordt had a spirited discussion of the advantages of Groupwise’s calendar feature.  Clearly, many of us love it, but for some of us it is more of a love/hate relationship.

Groupwise Calendar is software that allows you to post your work schedule in a way that is useful to others in your organization.  One of the most popular features of the software is something called “busy search.”  This allows anyone who has appropriate permissions to discover when you are not scheduled. There are many other software packages that compete, Microsoft Outlook for one example.  What I’m writing about here applies equally to any of them since it is not the software that I have a problem with but rather our attitudes to this type of software.  This type of software is “Enterprise Management” software. (Well, not a very extensive example, but it fits some of the multiple definitions of Enterprise Management Software.)  Groupwise offers advantages and disadvantages to it’s users that are characteristic of all “Enterprise Management” software.  The “Calendar” feature in Groupwise simply gives me one concrete example from which to discuss this matter.

I have no objections to using Groupwise Calendar, but I do object to the kind of faith in technology that the software seems to inspire.  This misplaced faith leads to unnecessary frustration with people who, from the prospective of a one user of the software, think that others are not using the software properly and thus make it difficult for everyone.  “If only so-and-so would keep this-or-that up to date.”  And so forth.  It is a practical impossiblity for everyone to keep every feature of such software up-to-date with respect to everyone’s potential expectations.  It would be a ball-and-chain on productivity if everyone even attempted this.  It would also be bad if everyone dismissed the software on grounds of it being needlessly complex and tedious, because if used correctly it should not be that way.  In fact there is no single “proper” way for “everyone” to use this type of software. 

“Busy search” purportedly allows the person setting up a meeting to choose a non-conflicting time for the meeting.  I say “purportedly” because the software is only an assistant in this task and not necessarily an effective one at that.  For obvious reasons of confidentiality, Groupwise’s calendar cannot actually show the calender of one person to another person.  Instead it shows times when something is scheduled—when people are “busy.” (Do you suppose they are not busy at other times?)  The “not busy” times are then prime times for scheduling new meetings or activities.

For one example of how frustration arises, suppose that on Friday morning “Joe” wants to schedule a meeting of six people.  He uses “busy search” and finds out that 8 AM on Monday is free for everyone on his list.  He then sends out a notice that is essentially a special form of e-mail announcing the mechanical details of the meeting (when, where, who, what) and asking the recipient to “Accept” or “Decline” the meeting.  The form e-mail also allows Joe to add a description of the meeting in text.  On Monday at 8 AM he comes back to find out that “Jane,” who he expected to be at the meeting, is out-of-town on a conference and has not even looked at her Groupwise Calendar.  Joe gets frustrated with “Jane” for not putting the conference on her Groupwise Calendar in the first place and for not keeping up with her messages in the second place.  When Jane finds out about this she gets frustrated with “Joe” since “Everyone Knows that the Big Conference is held at this time.”  She also wonders why should she be expected to keep up with that calendar program when she is fully committed elsewhere and most of her contacts cannot use it (because let’s say, they don’t and should not have the permissions to use it)?

Or frustration could work another way around.  Suppose when Jane wants to schedule a meeting and does a “busy search” she finds out that there are conflicts beyond the entire next week and she therefore schedules the meeting for 10 days from now to avoid the conflicts.  Later on she finds out that “Joe” had blocked out 3 hours on Monday morning for an “Appointment with Dr. Suess.” which is his code to schedule some undisturbed time in the office.  Had Joe only known of Jane’s need for an early meeting date he would have gladly rescheduled his “Appointment with Dr. Suess.”

In each case, the software was not effective at negotiating expectations and priorities.  That’s the main problem with all Enterprise Management software.  It’s great at handling the widely-understood expectations of routine business within an organization.  This is where it shines and should be used.  But it enforces a silly kind of prioritization whenever things are not so universally understood or routine.  There are times when something ad-hoc works better or even much better.

In the examples above when Joe and Jane were scheduling meetings each of them had key opportunities to bypass the “system” and get immediate results.  For example, when on Friday morning Joe scheduled the meeting, by Friday afternoon he should have realized that Jane did not accept the appointment.  Then he should have resorted to other means, such as a phone call to Jane or Jane’s secretary, etc.  He had faith that Groupwise would take care of something he should have been working at.  Likewise when Jane could not find a good meeting time, she should not have trusted Groupwise and given up on a timely meeting schedule.  She should have called or talked to people to find out what was really going on.  OK, we all see that!  So if Joe and Jane were not so smart, what’s the big deal?

The big deal is that all of us have a bit of Joe and Jane’s DNA!  We really do get frustrated when we think someone is not correctly using the Groupwise Calendar program (or any enterprise management type program).  We shouldn’t.  Life functions as a complicated whole.  No computer program is ever going to sort out all our priorties and take away the tedium of scheduling (or anything creative).  That’s because the act of scheduling is an act of bugeting time and setting priorities.  It is not always a mechanical matter.

So yes, in some offices and situations, those where mutual expectations are widely understood and there is some basic routine, a program like Groupwise Calendar will often be an effective assistant.  But even in this situation, there will be times when Groupwise by itself will be inadequate.  Especially when, in a larger organization where Groupwise is effective within a department or division, assuming that it will work as effectively in some other context within the organization is risky.

Thus we should reduce our expectations of “Enterprise Management” software like Groupwise Calendar, especially when we are doing something new that crosses boundaries (departmental, divisional) or that is not routine.  If new patterns or activities become routine we will find ways to apply software to make the work flow more efficiently.  But the software is only a mediator of social structures and priorities that are established by people.  Enterprise management software is no savior.

IEEE Field Trip to Chicagoland


The control room for Fermilab’s Tevetron proton-antiproton collider

In late January Dordt’s IEEE branch took a field trip to visit various electrical-engineering and physics related industries and places.  We left Dordt in two vans on a Thursday morning at 6 AM and traveled to Cedar Rapids where we spent the early afternoon at Rockwell Collins, where they design and manufacture avionics.  We visited their commercial avionics division.  We had a chance to operate a flight simulator, we saw how engineers there are planning new cockpit layouts, looked at their semiconductor designs of some chips used to receive GPS signals for navigation, and of course much more than can be summarized!  From there we drove on to our hotel in Aurora Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.  We enjoyed to pool and got a good night’s sleep too.  (Yep, we really did!)

On Friday we toured the Caterpillar plant in Aurora, one of the largest assembly plants in the world.  We walked for about three miles inside the plant on this tour.  Along the way we saw the assembly of one of the largest wheeled dozers made in the world.  We also saw how electronic systems are now used in the control of most aspects of such heavy machinery and in the automation of the welding of such equipment.

After lunch we visited Fermilab which is nearby to Caterpillar.   There we had a tour of various accelerators including a tour of the main building, the first-stage accelerator, and the building where the collision detectors are located.  From the observation area at the top of the main building we were also able to see the layout of the Tevetron accelerator, the second-largest such accelerator in the world.  It is 3.9 miles in circumference and is located underground, but we could see the moat of cooling water and other service buildings that are constructed over top of the accelerator.

We visited Giordanos Pizza for dinner that evening and then stayed overnight at a hotel on the lakefront.  Saturday we visited the Museum of Science and Industry during the day.  We left Chicago at about 3 PM and arrived back at Dordt College at about Midnight.