The art of discussions
I am writing in response to the comments of Mr. William Streett posted to the NDT forum in the past few weeks, but this contribution is more general so I did not repost it to a certain message. As Rolf Diederichs stated in the introduction to this months forum, if he would "... gave awards for best answers, winners would be Tom Nelligan or Ed Ginzel both are champions! "
I suggest to give the award to Mr. Streett. His answers are always very interesting. For those who did not follow up his contributions, here are some exaples:
To Alex Gibson, 5/21/1999 :
Those engaged in research on impact-echo could benefit from the extensive work done by Professor Sansalone and her colleagues, rather than attempting to reinvent the method.
To Camille Colla, 5/12/1999 :
The article by Colla, et al. is filled with so much misinformation that one hardly knows where to begin ...
Instead of taking the time to learn what is already known ...
They clearly do not understand how the choice of equipment ...
They readily fit the description of unskilled and uninformed operators ...
... has been ignored in the BAM-Berlin article.
To get serious: If someone has arguments against posted articles and think that its contribution to the forum is usefull for others I recomment to stick very close to the scientific details. This is a good tradition in the scientific community and it is even more important in the era of electronic publishing using the internet.
Considering that some of the forum readers with a poor expertise in english (including myself) will not understand the - lets say - enthusiasm of Mr. Streett regarding impact-echo, the scientific content in the sentences citated above is even harder to understand. There is no need to ride a personal attack against somebody else even if there is a dispute in a certain field of application.
Related to the scientific content of Mr. Streett's contributions I want to point out that there is still a lot of work to do in the field of impact-echo techniques. It is undoubtful that not all problems are yet solved especially regarding certain applications. The acceptance of a NDT method is not only influenced by the expertise of the applicators. I am glad about every scientist who is willing to share the results of impact-echo measurements and who gives details about measurement techniques and equipment. Reviewing the research in similar fields in the past it becomes obvious, that a method is developed much faster and more efficient if some different research groups with different equipment are working on theory and applications. Sometimes there are more benefits using own equipment than using the black-box equipment of a comercial manufacturer, but I agree that a company representative may have another opinion ;-)
Sorry, for my lengthy non-scientific contribution - maybe this is the time to come back to research and some concise discussions about it.