home

Archive for the 'Uni' Category

Nur mit Löchern leuchtet’s nicht…

Monday, January 9th, 2006

Vermutlich werden nur wenige meiner Leser den Witz verstehen, aber wer weiß. Eben bei der Literatursuche gesehen:

The current-voltage characteristics of (…) MEH-PPV-based hole-only light-emitting diodes are measured as a function of temperature.

Hole-only, aber light-emitting? Ist klar, Jungs.

Aus dem Abstract von Kumar et al., J. Appl. Phys. 98, 024502 (2005).

Uni | Comments (1)

No articles found

Monday, January 9th, 2006

No articles found
Nein, darüber muss man sich auch nicht wundern, wenn man bei der Literatursuche die inhaltlichen Stichwörter in das Autoren-Suchfeld eingibt. Nicht viele Leute heißen “field dependent mobility AND current voltage characteristics”. D’oh!

Uni | Comments (3)

Ist was dran…

Friday, January 6th, 2006

Okay, bei mir in der Materialwissenschaft wäre Zentralperspektive nicht das Thema, aber vom Sinn her… ist was dran: Seitenwechsel #5. Ein Comic von Flix, der vor kurzem von Student zu Dozent die Seiten gewechselt hat.

Fun, Uni | Comments Off on Ist was dran…

Protected: Die perfekte Messung

Friday, January 6th, 2006

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Musik, Uni | Enter your password to view comments.

Science (reprise)

Tuesday, December 20th, 2005

It’s 3:20 am and somehow I got to think about my recent post where I categorized scientific experiments into three different categories. Forget it. It’s even easier – there are just two basic categories.

  • Failed experiments you conduct during the day.
  • Failed experiments you conduct during the night.

    • I guess I shouldn’t publish posts directly after writing them, but should wait until I’ve reviewed them the next day in a more serene mood… ah, whatever.

    English, Gezeter, Uni | Comments (1)

    Science

    Wednesday, December 14th, 2005

    I guess, typical scientific experiments, or their output, can roughly be divided into three different classes. When you look at the results of your experiment you can either…

  • … see that there is a correlation between what you did (altered) and what happened (what / how much changed in your sample). Thus you can show that, say, A influences B in this and that way. Very nice. If no one ever showed that before, you can write a paper about it and/or fly to a conference somewhere and tell your excited colleagues all about it. (If somebody already showed the same thing, you might still write a paper about it. Unfortunately, people do that all the time.)
  • … see that there is no correlation between what you did and what happened. That’s okay as well, you write a paper about it and so on, and in case you’re a PhD student you’ve got some more content for your thesis. Of course, usually you’d prefer the outcome mentioned above. Just because “Hey, I had a great idea about how things might work; so to check this I set up an experiment in this and that way; if you want to do the same experiment, you’ve got to take special care about this and that; now for sample preparation I did this and that, and some other things as well; than I indeed did measure the sample property B in question while carefully changing A in a controlled and complicated manner… and see! I can clearly show that B… umm, well, it doesn’t give the slightest damn about A.” is sort of anticlimactic, isn’t it? But still, it’s a result, and you learned something about how things work.
  • … or you can look at your measurement and realize that all you can see is clearly nothing. You get no idea if fiddling with A does anything to B or not, because the g#!§$%! sample just does as it pleases anyway. Or it just doesn’t work at all, even so it did yesterday and might do so tomorrow, or never again.

    • Someone said the third option happens 99 out of 100 times in science.
    He must have been an overoptimistic lunatic.

    English, Gezeter, Uni | Comments (10)

    « Previous Page
    Next Entries »