ection/development.
"The majority of common metals have either a Face-Centered Cubic Structure, a Body Centered Cubic Structure, fig.lb or an Hexagonal Close Packed structur e These are usually abbreviated to FCC, BCC or HCP structures respectively."
That's not a big effect - dendrites are more about selective deposition due to ion flow through the electrolyte and separator than any tendency for th e metal to grow in a way that maximises it's surface area. In liquids "surf ace tension" reflects the tendency of the system to minimise it's surface a rea. In solids, the centre of a crystal face is a lower-energy local than t he edges of that face.
You can tell a lot about the people by the nature of the results they prese nt and the claims that they make.
sold.
You didn't read what I wrote. I worked in Cambridge, which nowadays conside rs itself a spin-off capital. Electron microscopes were in fact an early sp in-off - the commercialisation of Charles Oatley's work at Cambridge Univer sity - and Cambridge's viability as a spin-off centre can be judged from th e fact that the biggest electron-microscope manufacturer is JEOL (Japan Ele ctro-Optical Limited?).
Electron microscopes weren't the only thing I worked on, and I regularly ra n into people working for a range of spin-off companies.
Not "better minds" but rather minds with different experiences and prioriti es.
And if you rip it out too early, you won't end up with anything useful eith er.
The NSF should have known better. The Chinese just did what the Germans had done a few years earlier - tooling up for a ten-fold larger production vol ume than the current market could then consume, on the - correct - assumpti on that a ten-fold higher-volume manufacturing process would halve the unit price (which is roughly what happens most of the time). It's rough on all the people who had thought that their manufacfturing set-up was right-sized for the ten market.
Bearing in mind that Bell Labs was also an industrial research venture, as was EMI Central Research, where I worked for a few years.
No. They are trained and rewarded for writing papers that sound good at con ferences and attract positive attention - and citations - when published in the literature. Having lots of citations - a good h-index
is the key to promotion and to getting a better job somewhere else.
People who do well in spin-offs have other priorities.
Where things can go wrong is where the drive to get stuff done quickly cuts across the need to get stuff done well. I've got painful memories of desig n reviews being cancelled because it was more important to get the schemati c to printed circuit layout than it was to make sure that it was right.
When one board got to to the sub-contractor who was supposed to load it, th ere were enough inconsistencies on the parts list that the sub-contractor r efused to touch it until we'd gone through the parts list - I ended up doin g it myself and fifty of the five hundred resistors on the board were wrong in some way. It took a couple of days to work through them and sort them o ut.
The day saved on the design review cost us weeks of debugging.
Absolutely. I've seen that happen too.