First time blogging aimlessly, however, thought its worth a start...
Over the last few days, I have had all the time in the world for myself - to the extent that I have often gone to the nearby beach and have done a bit of google search to find out if is it just time or even tide has come to a standstill?!
This is when the mechanical engineer in me woke up. I have been out of touch for sometime now. There was once a time, when I used to read 'Auto India' the day it came to stalls, I knew the stats of most Indian cars right from technical specifications to monthly units sold - now haven't seen the mag for nearly a century (a bit of hyperbole, make it a couple of years). However, to say the least, it was interesting to get back to my roots.
The first part was a bit of search on passenger aircraft fundaes - at BITS, I didn't take any course in aerodynamics, nor in basics of aircraft. Probably the only funda I knew was pressure difference (Mr. Bernoulli had a theorem for this!) and the resulting lift on aircraft wings. Having done a bit of travel off-late and with a bit of luck, I have managed to get window seat on or behind the wings, got my curiosity going ab't how does an aircraft actually work. Everytime when the engine goes full blast while take-off on the runway, I feel a bit proud of being a mechanical engineer - in an age when innovation has shifted to other fields (Comp Sci, Elec) and the core mechanical has now shifted more towards nano fundaes and materials in general. So, eventually did ghot up some fundaes on aircrafts, wikipedia was a big help. However, with a few questions answered and other avenues exposed, my knowledge gap has further widened - hopefully one fine day will get a chance to speak to a pilot and download all information!
The second stage of getting back to roots happened kinda yesterday. Santro back home is having some pending maintenance and probably its time to change the car. So, I started off with a bit of search on current models in market, tech specs, features, looks and ofcourse the 'cash-outflow'! The final decision not withstanding, I am enjoying this process of learning the stuff all over again. Engine BHP, multi-point fuel injection, inline 4-cylinder, compression ratio and gear ratios is driving me nuts. And when I saw the gear ratios of Swift was slightly taken aback - it was 0.9 for 4th and close to 0.7 for 5th - thats a lot of overdrive - slightly more than Santro and I was thinking how would it have an influence on the performance. Then I saw, the engine is actually a power house - 87BHP of raw power and probably that has helped in higher overdrive of higher gears. I would wanna test drive Swift, coz another interesting part is that there is a huge difference in ratio of 1st gear and 2nd. Probably it implies that is a high speed engine with good lower end torque. In normal english, it implies that for city drive, 2nd gear can have a wide speed range. I need to test drive swift now...!!
I saw ABS somewhere and said, I know I know it all. Its has something to do with braking at turns and it is a bit of controlled electronic braking. Just when I felt confident of "I still understand the basics", my friend Maharaj came on chat - this dude, having done elec and instru in Bits is now doing masters in automobiles - so, its always fun. I thought of 'vibing' about my 'sudden return to form', but was thunderstruck when maharaj mentioned something called 'ESP' - I was completely taken aback! There was a sudden depreciation in my self-worth as a potential automobile engineer! Went back again to my friend wikipedia to ghot up 'ESP'. But...
So, was an interesting day, when once I thought 'I know it all' in Auto and then there was a sudden transformation towards the end of the day when I realised that 'the auto world has moved ahead'. With a dent to my auto ego, I decided to switch off music and crash!!
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Sunday, August 14, 2005
The effect of emotions
‘I don’t give a damn’, ‘I know this is not good for me, but I like it the way it is’. These are many decisions that we tend to make often, however when we look back and give it a thought, often we realize that we have stepped out of the ‘logical world’ to a world governed by our emotions. However, the positive side to it is compelling enough for us to forget the negatives – positive emotions make this life worth living – somehow we all want to differentiate ourselves from machines and robots.
Before going in deep into what I have been struggling with for sometime, I want to give a logical overview to what made me think in this direction. I took help of a very close friend for this: mathematics! - another example of emotions, though positive.
In many ways, life to me should be governed by linear programming – we keep allocating our resources or making decisions in a way to maximize the objective function. <click here to know more about LP>. Now this objective function is extremely subjective as we all have different goals in life, different ways to look at what we consider as good and a different picture of ourselves sometime down the time line. So, I will leave this debate out of this discussion, but our maximizing function could be anything – getting to certain position, being a CEO of a top notch firm, doing maximum good to humanity, making difference to the way people lead lives, inventing something that could change the way we live or simply being a balanced person successful in most arenas of personal life without being exceptional at any.
I believe that the above is something extremely personal and would range from person to person, probably differing by the stage of life we are at and the cycle of success and failure we have been through. So, what is common is that we all have or rather should have a maximizing function governing our lives, but the coefficients (could be zero for variables that don’t mean much to us) that each of us assign to the above variables are a matter of personal choice and the perception of our picture of the ‘ideal life’.
Now we move to defining the constraints to the linear problem. In the LP of our lives, the constraints could be many like our intellectual ability, the opportunities in the place around us, our input in terms of pure hard work, our prior commitments to other spheres that act as a constraint, our resources (sometimes monitory) that we can afford to invest in to get future gains (e.g. education) and then our emotional balance. There are many other constraints that we can think of, however the discussion from now on would focus on our emotions. However, given that there are so many other factors/constraints that can limit us from achieving our "full potential", why should be focus on emotions?
There are two reasons for it in my view. One is that we only work to improve the constraints that are within our ‘locus of control’ or very simply, we can bring about a change in factors like emotions and cannot go all the way to improve the GDP and education opportunities in our respective countries.
The other reason and the motivation behind this discussion is the very nature of LP. Now, let me demonstrate the LP that I was talking of in a very simple one dimension world:
Our objective function:
Maximize x – let it be a very simple objective function
The constraints being:
x <= 10 – say for intellectual ability
x <= 20 – say for the amount of input we can put in
x <= 15 – say for the opportunities available
x <= 30 – say for our prior commitments towards family, etc
x <= 4 – for our emotional balance
The solution to the above simple LP would be x=4. So, when we look back at other factors, we have achieved only 40% of what our intellectual ability promises, 20% of the input that we can provide in, 26% of the opportunities made available to us, 13% of prior commitments and 100% of our emotional capability!
The above example is to demonstrate the effect of one constraint, in actual ‘LP of life’, there would be many dimensions/variables making it complex, thought the understanding of relaxing a constraint would remain the same.
The above ‘efficiencies’ could have looked a lot better if we had somehow made the constraint of emotional balance a bit softer. i.e. someone with better emotional balance could have utilized some of these externalities in a better way.
There have been many theories that have tried to reduce the effect of negative emotions. One of these is ‘detachment’ – in lines with care about your input and not exactly the rewards that you would get. This sounds good to control negative emotions, once you are not deeply involved emotionally, the outcome will not ‘hurt’ you in anyway. But, I have never been able to follow this, not because I cannot ‘detach’ myself, but because I feel the drive and the motivation would die down if the final result if kept out of the equation. This is true in my view as there are many critical decisions that we need to make in pursuit of any goal or objective function and without the focus on the outcome, it is very likely that lesser important things would grab our attention, or with obstacles on the path, we might not have the perseverance to go all the way without keeping in mind the outcome.
Given the draw back of the above theory, in an ideal world, I would want to follow the ‘modulus function’ – wherein, the positive emotions stay the way they should and I have internal mechanisms to counter negative emotions. It is much easier said than done. In the last few months I have tried to hunt for ways to get to that state, but it is not easy. And this probably is the motivation behind this discussion.
In my view, there are many things that come in the way in achieving the ‘modulus function’ state: the biggest problem that I think in these situations is ‘ego’ – if it was not for our own ego, it would have been so easy to just let go the negative emotions. A lesser word for ego is ‘self respect’ or the need that we all have to be ‘counted in the scheme of things’. I have been trying to find answers to this puzzle. It would be great if you could help me with this with your views, suggestions and an answer to the ‘ego conundrum’. I would also like to know if the above logic of looking at ‘life as LP’ is the most appropriate way. The other way is to look at it as a regression equation, wherein one variable/constraint cannot have as big an effect as in LP.
Please mail me your views at anupammathur11@yahoo.com or reply to this post with your comments.
Before going in deep into what I have been struggling with for sometime, I want to give a logical overview to what made me think in this direction. I took help of a very close friend for this: mathematics! - another example of emotions, though positive.
In many ways, life to me should be governed by linear programming – we keep allocating our resources or making decisions in a way to maximize the objective function. <click here to know more about LP>. Now this objective function is extremely subjective as we all have different goals in life, different ways to look at what we consider as good and a different picture of ourselves sometime down the time line. So, I will leave this debate out of this discussion, but our maximizing function could be anything – getting to certain position, being a CEO of a top notch firm, doing maximum good to humanity, making difference to the way people lead lives, inventing something that could change the way we live or simply being a balanced person successful in most arenas of personal life without being exceptional at any.
I believe that the above is something extremely personal and would range from person to person, probably differing by the stage of life we are at and the cycle of success and failure we have been through. So, what is common is that we all have or rather should have a maximizing function governing our lives, but the coefficients (could be zero for variables that don’t mean much to us) that each of us assign to the above variables are a matter of personal choice and the perception of our picture of the ‘ideal life’.
Now we move to defining the constraints to the linear problem. In the LP of our lives, the constraints could be many like our intellectual ability, the opportunities in the place around us, our input in terms of pure hard work, our prior commitments to other spheres that act as a constraint, our resources (sometimes monitory) that we can afford to invest in to get future gains (e.g. education) and then our emotional balance. There are many other constraints that we can think of, however the discussion from now on would focus on our emotions. However, given that there are so many other factors/constraints that can limit us from achieving our "full potential", why should be focus on emotions?
There are two reasons for it in my view. One is that we only work to improve the constraints that are within our ‘locus of control’ or very simply, we can bring about a change in factors like emotions and cannot go all the way to improve the GDP and education opportunities in our respective countries.
The other reason and the motivation behind this discussion is the very nature of LP. Now, let me demonstrate the LP that I was talking of in a very simple one dimension world:
Our objective function:
Maximize x – let it be a very simple objective function
The constraints being:
x <= 10 – say for intellectual ability
x <= 20 – say for the amount of input we can put in
x <= 15 – say for the opportunities available
x <= 30 – say for our prior commitments towards family, etc
x <= 4 – for our emotional balance
The solution to the above simple LP would be x=4. So, when we look back at other factors, we have achieved only 40% of what our intellectual ability promises, 20% of the input that we can provide in, 26% of the opportunities made available to us, 13% of prior commitments and 100% of our emotional capability!
The above example is to demonstrate the effect of one constraint, in actual ‘LP of life’, there would be many dimensions/variables making it complex, thought the understanding of relaxing a constraint would remain the same.
The above ‘efficiencies’ could have looked a lot better if we had somehow made the constraint of emotional balance a bit softer. i.e. someone with better emotional balance could have utilized some of these externalities in a better way.
There have been many theories that have tried to reduce the effect of negative emotions. One of these is ‘detachment’ – in lines with care about your input and not exactly the rewards that you would get. This sounds good to control negative emotions, once you are not deeply involved emotionally, the outcome will not ‘hurt’ you in anyway. But, I have never been able to follow this, not because I cannot ‘detach’ myself, but because I feel the drive and the motivation would die down if the final result if kept out of the equation. This is true in my view as there are many critical decisions that we need to make in pursuit of any goal or objective function and without the focus on the outcome, it is very likely that lesser important things would grab our attention, or with obstacles on the path, we might not have the perseverance to go all the way without keeping in mind the outcome.
Given the draw back of the above theory, in an ideal world, I would want to follow the ‘modulus function’ – wherein, the positive emotions stay the way they should and I have internal mechanisms to counter negative emotions. It is much easier said than done. In the last few months I have tried to hunt for ways to get to that state, but it is not easy. And this probably is the motivation behind this discussion.
In my view, there are many things that come in the way in achieving the ‘modulus function’ state: the biggest problem that I think in these situations is ‘ego’ – if it was not for our own ego, it would have been so easy to just let go the negative emotions. A lesser word for ego is ‘self respect’ or the need that we all have to be ‘counted in the scheme of things’. I have been trying to find answers to this puzzle. It would be great if you could help me with this with your views, suggestions and an answer to the ‘ego conundrum’. I would also like to know if the above logic of looking at ‘life as LP’ is the most appropriate way. The other way is to look at it as a regression equation, wherein one variable/constraint cannot have as big an effect as in LP.
Please mail me your views at anupammathur11@yahoo.com or reply to this post with your comments.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)