DISCUSSIONON "COLLEGIATE TRAINING FOR THE RADIO ENGI-

NEERING FIELD," BY C. M. JANSKY

J. H. Dellinger: I would like to add one point to the veryexcellent ones brought out in Professor Jansky's paper, and itis a point which it was impossible for him to make. My addedpoint is that we give too little credit to our educators. The honorand credit for the achievement in radio should be divided be-tween the men who make the advances and the teachers whohave trained them. Professors, and instructors generally, sel-dom get their due, and this is an excellent occasion to draw atten-tion to that seriously neglected fact.

The common attitude toward educators and educationalcourses is one of broad criticism rather than praise. We havean effective offset to this critical attitude in papers like this oneof Professor Jansky's which reveal how the educator is thor-oughly alive to the problems before him and is capable of givingthem as keen and thorough an analysis as any engineer gives anengineering problem. Professor Jansky has set forth a numberof important ideas for our consideration and I would like toemphasize the ones which appear to me of particular importance.They are five in number.

First, he points out that in most electrical engineering courses"the fundamentals of electrical theory are taught by the aid ofproblems and illustrations which are almost entirely drawn fromthe power field." It is certainly true that the characteristicphenomena of electrical communication give just as valuablea province for instruction as those of electric power. This willunquestionably be given increasing recognition.

Second, it is pointed out as obvious that training in physicsis an essential part of the radio engineer's education. Whilethis is often stated and is indeed obvious, it cannot be given toomuch emphasis. This is proved by Professor Jansky's admis-sion that "I have yet to meet a group of senior students whodid not have a hazy idea concerning" the fundamental physicalconcepts. My own observation of the preparation and technicalequipment of radio engineers gives strong emphasis to the need

Received by the Editor June 6, 1926.441

DISCUSSION OF JANSKY PAPER

for more thorough training in fundamental physics. I havemany times been thankful that the gentleman who taught mephysics had no illusions as to ability of students to grasp thesubject. I came to know some of his philosophy of teaching, andhe said that his experience had led him to the conclusion that ifhe could get even one physical principle thoroughly into theheads of his students so that they really knew it and used it,he felt that the year's teaching work was successful. Fortunately,a principle on which he concentrated was simple harmonicmotion. Any student who got through his course without grasp-ing, the principle that in simple harmonic emission the force isproportional to the displacement probably was hopeless as faras learning physics was concerned. I believe it is fair to addthat when a man has learned this particular principle he hassecured a substantial part of the stock in trade of a well trainedradio engineer.

Third, it is suggested that courses in expression are of funda-mental importance. This point is seldom mentioned or realized. Ibelieve it is of enormous importance, second only to the need oftraining in physics, that an engineer should be trained in thearts of expressing himself, either in writing or in speaking to anaudience. Obviously few engineers spend much of their timein either writing or public speaking; nevertheless, all must do acertain amount of it, and shortcomings in a man's ability inexpression all too often weigh heavily against and neutralizeability in his technical work.

Fourth, it is neatly demonstrated that the student of radioengineering must have technical training in his chosen fieldthrough the application of his physics and other fundamentalwork to concrete problems of radio engineering. The argumentgiven on this disposes of the contention frequently made that theteaching of methods of application should be left entirely to aman's experience in the industry after graduation.

Fifth, and finally, we are reminded that students cannot betrained to fit a particular model as a piece of material would befashioned into an instrument, because of the fact that the studentis first of all a human individual. This again disposes of somecriticisms leveled against educational institutions. The manu-facturer would like to have recruits for the industry with adefinite kind of preparation which could be prescribed as theresult of analysis of the particular work the man is to do. Thatthis is not in general possible hinges on the fact that by far thegreat majority of the students are not certain during their college

442

DISCUSSION OF JANSKY PAPER

course as to what vocation they will pursue or for what branchof engineering they are fitted. The teacher cannot subordinatethe human problem involved to the less important task ofcreating a mere standardized unit of work.

Of the various points brought out in Professor Jansky's paper,by far the most important is the emphasis on the need of funda-mental training. The details of radio engineering or any otherbranch of engineering are ephemeral, and they have their rootsin physical principles. To learn the principles of physics andhow to apply them to understand, to modify, and eventuallyto create engineering processes is much more difficult and farmore important to the student than the practical engineering.I would venture to defend the thesis that the responsi-bility of the position attainable by a man is proportionalto his grounding in the fundamentals of his subject. I do notmean at all that opportunity and other circumstances necessarilyalways bring a man to this position, and, on the other hand, hisgrounding in fundamentals must be actual and does not meanthat he has merely been exposed to knowledge of fundamentalsthrough taking certain courses. There is no way to learn thefundamental facts of a profession and to understand the processeswhich are vital except by hard work. I believe it to be true thatnot only the responsibility of the position open to a man but thecontribution he can make to his field of work and the satisfactionhe can get out of life, are proportional to his grounding in thefundamentals of his vocation.

Alfred N. Goldsmith: It is unquestionably one of the func-tions of universities to train specialists in professional branches,such as radio engineering. There is not, however, a widespreadknowledge of the real qualifications of a radio engineer. Thefollowing definition may be proposed: "A radio engineer is anelectrical engineer who has first specialized in communicationengineering, and then sub-specialized in radio communication."Guided by this definition, it is clear that the fundamental train-ing of a radio engineer is that of an electrical engineer. His firstspecialization should be in the field of alternating current phenom-ena at high frequencies and the characteristics which are dis-played to such currents by networks and systems having con-centrated or distributed electrical constants. If electric courseson advanced transformer design and, under the division ofphysics, on acoustics are available, the student will do well tochoose these.

The sub-specialization in radio engineering will deal with the

443

444 DISCUSSION OF JANSKY PAPER

theory and construction of the specialized circuits used in radiotransmitting and receiving apparatus, together with a carefulstudy of that universal device, the triode, or three-electrode tube.A great deal of emphasis should be placed on the laboratory sideof the work because the field is new and rapidly changing, andonly those who have had direct contact with actual equipment willbe spared the continual mortification of embarrassing mistakesbased upon too slavish a reliance on narrow theoretical consid-erations.

There are today relatively few universities giving training inthe field of radio engineering which, perhaps, is just as well, sincethe absorption of trained men in the radio engineering field(despite public interest in this field) is rather limited. It maybe added that a radio engineer, on graduation from the univer-sity, is qualified to begin his career in a somewhat humblecapacity, since he must get experience in the test, design, andmanufacturing divisions of a commercial organization of somescope before he can be depended upon to meet the requirements ofthis fairly difficult profession. However, it is a most interestingfield and the workers in it feel that they are in the van of progress.

Arthur F. Rose: Professor Jansky's paper is of considerableinterest to all of us who are engaged in communication work,although it applies particularly to the radio engineering fieldwhich Professor Jansky has emphasized. His analysis of thetime-worn policy of industry urging "emphasis of fundamentalsin the engineering curriculum" is a very valuable contributionand will aid in bringing together the viewpoints of those in thefield and the educators. The question of what constitutes funda-mentals has been the subject of many discussions, all of whichresult in the conclusions that the same fundamentals form thebasis for both communication engineering and power engineering.The difference between the two is only the question of the fre-quencies and the amount of power involved. In the power fielda single frequency and large quantities of power are studied,while in the communication field minute quantities of powerbut a very large range of frequencies are involved.

The radio engineer or the communication engineer in hisdesign work must study the action of his circuits throughout thefrequency range of voice transmission. For instance, the sharplytuned circuits of radio sets react very differently at the differentfrequencies and may introduce appreciable amounts of distor-tion if not considered carefully from this standpoint. Therefore,the fundamental conceptions which the student obtains in his

DISCUSSION OF JANSKY PAPER 445

early studies should not be restricted to single frequency reac-tions.

Again in connection with the question of teaching engineeringapplications in the colleges, Professor Jansky has emphasizedthe importance of teaching the student how to apply his funda-mental knowledge to specific problems. This is, of course, theaim of all education, for as Ruskin says, "All knowledge is lostwhich ends in knowing, for every truth we know is a candle givenus to work by." In some cases, however, the tendency has beento attempt to make the student a finished radio engineer afterhaving taken a course on radio telephony. This, of course, is amistake, as the text books and problems used in the courses mustnecessarily lag considerably behind the practical application ofthe art in the field. In radio engineering particularly, the artis changing so rapidly that it appears futile to attempt to teachdetailed application, but better to concentrate on the more funda-mental aspects and by practice acquire skill in approaching newproblems.