SMS_S2016_01

So how many people are sophomores or juniors? Seniors? Okay, how many graduates? Any aero astro? Actually two people, or supposedly management. Okay, I just want to get a general feel for things. I guess we can start.

So my name is Tom Eagar. I've been teaching some version of this course for a little over thirty years. It started out as 3.37, then they started us 3.37 and then we put a one at the end for some reason that I don't understand, and that's the graduate course of course three. And then there's the graduate course of course two, and these basically [are] joint courses. And then a couple years ago I asked for an undergraduate course number and they gave me an experimental course number or something, I don't know what 3s what's up. They've gotten, they've got too complex on the numbering system for me to be able to figure out. But in any case it's basically the same course so you don't have to worry about that.

It says it has prerequisites at the undergraduate. I don't consider it has prerequisites, but the department or somebody said I should have prerequisites. Okay so it's just easier on something like that to do what they say. But I've had, well I taught this course for people in industry, and I've had people with high school degrees take the course and you can get something out of it. I've had people with philosophy degrees from college, okay, or psychology degrees, and they're taking the course. But it's partly that I have a different philosophy about teaching.

I was MIT freshman, came here as a freshman in 1968, got my doctorate over here, went off for about two years industry, came back as a faculty member, have been on the faculty for something like thirty years. I decided about ten years ago, well, I decided long ago, about twenty-five years ago, I didn't like the way we teach. But I wasn't, for that ten or fifteen years ago when I stepped down as department head and I turned 50, I said I'm just going to enjoy myself for the rest of my career. I'm not going to play these silly little games here and I'm going to teach the way I want, and I don't care what the rest of the Institute says about that.

So in fact the problem I had with the way we teach, and I realized this about twenty, twenty-five years ago, I went down to have breakfast with my children, they had their math book on the kitchen table. They were in high school at the time. I looked through the math book and they had two pages on every, seventy-two pages on derivatives, two pages on integrals, two pages on exponentials. I had never known that mathematics came in two-page units, a uniformity, two pages on every topic. And there were 120 topics in that book and so obviously they would do one topic a day. And all they were doing was preparing the students to take the SATs. They were trying to teach the math, they were trying to teach them to pass an exam. And to a certain extent that's what I saw at MIT, except the problem at MIT is you would have got here knowing how to take exams.

So there are no exams in this course, which upsets some people because they really would like to show how much smarter they are than their classmates, that is, they can pass an exam. Well for me to teach you a course that, well, help me catch the families, I have to cover a certain amount of material particularly up to the day before the exam. Or really upset if I ask you a quiz question, it's not an exam. So I do, I solve that problem, I don't give them anything that way. I can lecture on whatever I want. And I actually would much prefer that you ask a question and have me see if I can spend a half an hour answering your question in more detail than you ever thought possible. Because I've already heard the lecture, I've been doing this for thirty years in this course, I've heard the lectures, I know what I'm going to say and I'm sort of bored with it myself. It's not actually that boring for you because most of you will have heard it for the first time, but I would much rather address a question than to necessarily file through whatever I have as an outline in my notes. So please ask questions. If you don't understand something, say it.

Okay, I learned a number of years ago, actually back around 1990, I was on a committee, and this was actually part of LFM [Leaders for Manufacturing] which is the predecessor of LGO. And John Little was a professor, Institute Professor at Sloan School, and he chaired the committee, and he called it the Do Something committee, which I sort of liked as I've been on plenty of do-nothing committees. And we were supposed to look at distance education. Stanford already had a great, what they call tutored video instruction. And what that meant is they videotaped a regular class at Stanford. They would send the videotapes, this is 1980s, send the videotapes out to some Intel site or Hewlett-Packard site in Colorado or Arizona or somewhere. And they would have a group of five or ten students watching the video at a convenient time in some conference room at the company site. And they would select one student who might actually have a PhD in the subject, prepare in the topic area, who they call the tutor. Or they may just take a student who is taking the course at the same time, say you're the tutor for this and you have to get together, you have to know how to turn on the video recorders, la la la.

And they actually found the students who took TVI courses did better than the students on campus. Okay. There've been a number of studies since then that taking things by delayed video instruction, actually the students get better comprehension than if they do it in the classroom. And you can say well why is that. Well I didn't know why, but we determined out of that committee, John Little's committee, that General Motors had asked, for Tom Eagar teaches a welding course, for General Motors in 1990 you can get a master's degree by essentially doing something like the Stanford TVI guys. I'm going to get it from RPI, Rensselaer Polytechnic, or Purdue, or Iowa University. But MIT had never given credit at a distance in 1990. So we determined that we would take twenty students at GM Tech Center, I would videotape my lectures, MIT agreed to go to the Provost to get permission to take the tuition money, which was about forty thousand dollars from those twenty students, to GM.

And we were plowed in to MIT video production people, and I had to take everything over to building nine every morning at about five thirty in the morning and lecture seven thirty in the morning, and we videotaped it from the students and provide breakfast for the students on campus and send it to General Motors. And I told the General Motors guys from the very beginning, I want you, you're not in class, to ask me one question a week. You can fax me, you can email me, you know whatever, you can call me, but I want every student, all twenty of them, to ask me twenty questions a week. Well about halfway through the semester I had one question. Obviously no one listened to me. But in any case I had one question. And then General Motors said we want you to go out and meet with the students. So they paid for me to go out and meet with the students. I said how come I didn't get any questions, and they said well look, we understand you. We just play the tape back a second time, around usually makes sense. So I realized it's not that the faculty are incoherent, we just think they're incoherent because our attention span over fifty minutes lapses or whatever. You miss a little bit when you're getting it live. But when you get it by delayed video, you can stop, replay it, and follow along with what's going on. That's why the tutored video Stanford students were doing better, they can play back what the professor said. Now sometimes the professors are incoherent but nonetheless, well, you know, most of the time it's actually not, they're incoherent. But when you hear the second time it makes more sense.

So what happened is over the next couple years I was doing this for General Motors, and students would call up "I'm sick, Professor Eagar," or "I've got a class of 12, a conference," or "you know, my great aunt"— I'd say okay just watch the movie. And so I actually decided, and we lost the GM funding because GM lost twenty-three billion dollars one quarter one year, because they have a thunder punching fund. But I decided to videotape lectures. I pay out of my pocket to videotape my lectures, and I have been for the last twenty-five years, because it means that you can watch the movie if you can't make the class. There are people who take this class who never come to class except to do their report presentation. So you don't have to even come to class, you're supposed to watch the video. I remember one student evaluated the course and said they watched it while they were fixing dinner. Okay. And I thought that was a great evaluation. I mean, you know, it's interesting to me, you know, I can turn on the nightly news, okay so listen to Tommy, you're the deltoids, okay.

So in any case, what you have to do in this course is a presentation, okay. The presentation could be on anything you want, and a live presentation. We have thirty or forty students which is what we've had the last few years. I used to try to say, well we're talking about structural materials, you should be on a structural material. And then I found, you know, whatever you're interested in, you will do a better job if you present it on something you're interested in. And actually most of the students who are here are here because they're interested in something about science and technology. I've had people talk about fancy doorknobs, I've had people talk about Gothic arches, I've had people talk about pole vault poles, which I actually find quite interesting, composites. Okay, the structure, the stiffness, the modulus and stuff. Anyway any topic you want.

But you've only got ten minutes. That means no 110 overheads. And I don't want you to say how General Motors builds cars in ten overheads, that's a little broad. Or how Boeing builds airplanes. Just pick something a little more specific. I had a very interesting one a couple of years ago, a student from Mexico, who talked about adobe bricks, okay, because that's how they build homes in Mexico. Adobe, what is it, just mud and straw. Remember Moses and the Pharaoh who said you can't make bricks without straw? Well you know, you take mud and straw, it's a composite material, it's a structural material. I didn't know, instead of using regular mud they often use cow manure, because it keeps the flies away. Okay. We've gotten our trapping flies. But apparently adobe made of manure helps keep the flies away, or something, maybe keep the people out of the house I don't know. But I've learned a lot, and I think if you look at the student evaluations, I think students feel like they learn as much from the evaluations from the student presentations as they do from the lectures.

Alright, but nonetheless, know what you're interested in, you're good at it, so you get to make a presentation. Until last year I could say I'd only give them two grades in thirty years, A's and B's, well now I actually gave last year some C's, okay. And that's because, I'll tell you quite frankly, two students got up and gave me the Wall Street Journal approach to materials. Okay, it's garbage, absolute garbage. I'm sort of famous over at Sloan, when I was in the LFM elephant program, I sat in Eric Vrede's lecture, they have these big lecture halls with tiers, and they have their names in front of it, they can call you out by name, kind of harsh business-school approach of intimidating students. And a number of students were sitting there reading their Wall Street Journal. And I made some comment, well, you know, if you're reading The Wall Street Journal it's no longer news, okay. I think they're reading The Wall Street Journal to find out what the latest and greatest technology is. And what would you find if you were reading The Wall Street Journal nowadays, if you read articles in materials about what topics? Carrots, additive manufacturing, nanotechnology, biotech, right. Very rarely would you hear something exciting about steel or even, oh, or copper.

And actually what we're going to do with my part of course is we're going to talk about steel, but I spell it with two E's, not S-T-E-E-L, okay, it's different. I will tell you as we go along some secrets I learned as a young faculty member about how teaching is done. How many of you have ever been to a class where the professor spent the entire hour doing a derivation, okay? You know why? Because they didn't have time to prepare a lecture. I realized that my first year on the faculty. I'd been traveling, I was teaching a graduate course on deformation processing. I came in that morning, hadn't really prepared the lecture, trying to figure out what I was going to do at nine o'clock. And I looked at that, oh I can do this derivation. And also the light went off, oh, that's why the professors would go up there and spent a whole hour making the space on the board and confusing the students or putting the students asleep. And I swore to myself, thirty-seven years ago, I'd never do another derivation in class. I did it that day because I didn't have, kind of, anything else, I had a fair election, sense I was teaching thermo and stuff. And whenever the derivation was in a book, I would write it out, I would copy it, and I would hand it out to the students saying, here, here's how you derive this formula, let's talk about what it means. Who cares about doing the algebra of how to do the derivation, okay. You know that, that's just going to make a statement. Okay they always do.

So anyway, so why should I bore everyone? Well I make that kind of mistake, I can tell you stories, and the stories aren't always accurate, but it's my story. So if I'm wrong, this is a fantasy I've been on. So anyway, we're supposed to be talking about structural materials. There are two of us, Dr. Sadoway and Dr. [Allmer], who will be lecturing tomorrow. I'll be in today and Friday, Sadoway tomorrow, Allmer next week, beginning Thursday. And you have to do three modules in this course. I lecture in module, these are sort of lecture modules approximately. If you look on Stellar, I used to hand everything out, that's the way we did it in the old days before we had things like Stellar. But on the summer, you'll see the sort of syllabus in this course, Monday through Friday nine to ten, through about mid April. They front-load this course. Since there are no exams, since you don't have to read anything except what you want to read, because you don't have to study for an exam. I will give you plenty of reading on Stellar if you want to read it, you can. In fact one student's evaluation a number years ago, "you can get a lot out of this course or a little." And that's fine, if you want to pay this kind of tuition and get nothing out of it, be my guest, okay. I pass, I don't need to pass, okay. And you can probably pass this course without doing much, but hopefully we'll make it interesting and you'll want to do something.

So we'll be in here. You're going to have to do three modules. There'll be two lectures live. Why, I will do material selection this semester, those of lectures. I'm just across the hall basically, and my assistant Cheryl Hill, and she likes to help students, so if you need to come see me, I tend to get in about seven o'clock in the morning, I tend to go home about three o'clock, traffic. I said sixteen years ago, I stepped down from administration, said I'm going to enjoy myself for the rest of my career. And then Dr. Sadoway's hands-on, what he calls "uh, start for material science." And we had a little kind of catalog description of what we're going to do.

Third module, you don't have to do these modules in fact, I might as well put it up. [Tom puts up a slide listing enrolled students.] This is the list of students that the Registrar said is taking the course. The ones in yellow are taking this course for the second time or the third time. Oh, okay, my secretary, anyway, okay so we make mistakes, that's why we don't quiz you. So I won't come out, but in any case whatever it is, you can see a significant number of students take, Tracy's taking it, she's a junior, she's taking it for the third time, right. She videotaped it last year, and I gave her a different job this year, I actually paid people to do the videotaping. I lost my lecture, codes and acoustic standards, which is what I'm going to do, this course, so she's going to go back, she did stuff getting taken notes in [secretary]. So in any case, she just watched codes and standards at home on her computer screen. By the way these are all essentially now on YouTube. So if you couldn't continue streaming, you don't have to download. That was what BUMS [?] before. But in any case, you can see when Dr. Sadoway talks, when I talk, what the subjects were. We've been doing this type of stuff, putting on YouTube since 2011, and I could go back to 1986 videos.

But in any case, welding's my own research area, that I got tenure in. Manufacturing is kind of what I've been doing, since I've always been interested essentially in structural materials. And so Tracy said, watch codes and standards, outline it, inform you. Tell me what I said, try to collect back by all the stuff that I lost my notes and things, so next fall it stands. But in any case you can take it. There are enough modules that as long as you take three different modules, you have a pass on the course, and someone could take a module of course one, or a module of course three, or course two. Well in case so we're going to, hopefully unless both of us are out of town one day, we will have class every day of the week, and we'll finish up some time before spring break. In fact we might even start your presentations before spring break.

I have to watch all of thirty-some presentations, that I make the students usually watch three presentations a day. If you can't come in, when you see one person, you know they can't come in, you miss another class. By the way this is one of the reasons I can get more students. Because a lot of students can't take a class, a thousand conflicts. In fact I have students from course 15, course 4, course 3, often have an engineer or aero astro, but I typically have students from five or six departments. And what time can you find that they can all meet? When I remember years ago we tried to do this before the Institute was quite as flexible, and the only time that everyone could meet was four o'clock on Friday. But by doing it this way we don't have to worry about that. By doing asynchronous lecturing, this means you can watch the video, we don't have to worry about that. Are there any questions?

So you specialize, about thirty-six lectures, you're supposed to give a presentation. There's going to be different materials to be, this particular handout will be on Stellar. This says you should learn something about communications, and we will talk some about communication so far as that goes. And even if you didn't, even if you couldn't come to class to do any of the live lectures, you still find out what I said back in spring of, or fall of 2014, I did this set of lectures, although I'll guarantee you something, not exactly the same. And in 2013 in the fall, I did it. Dr. Sadoway did some version of this things in the spring. So this is the same type of stuff off my website that shows you what we let you know.

So I told you about the grades, I told you about the requirements in the syllabus. If you want, there are some handouts that will be on Stellar that you can read. One of them is, I actually now use this course to try to figure out some things that I've always tried to figure out. And last fall I taught a course, I didn't even know if it would fly, but it was called What is Engineering? Because I've always wondered, what is the difference between science and engineering? And looked it up, but I always liked Theodore von Kármán who said that scientists discover that which exists, engineers create that which never was. They've done from Theodore von Kármán, who was one of the greatest scientists and engineers in the United States in the twentieth century. He founded the Jet Propulsion Lab at Caltech. They explained why the Wright brothers were successful from a scientific point of view. And Joel loved this, he needed to be published in the media lab grades, that was never will be, okay. This is, but I came up with three pages, or three things, it's four pages, almost three and a half pages of quotes from different people. And this will be posted, you can read it. But at the end of the semester I basically came up: science seeks to increase human knowledge, engineering seeks to improve the human condition. That's my definition of the difference between science and engineering. And I basically, we just sort of explored what engineering, what engineers do, what scientists do, what's the difference. And it turns out there are huge differences in the attitude of scientists and engineers. So if you want to hear about philosophy, what is engineering, you should take that module, or does engineer—

This is something I put together. I'm just trying to write a book on, I checked all fifty years, and then Mikey, right now. But anyway in the book I wrote the prologue, or the epilogue, early on, and so I'm survival kit, my key lessons learned. This kind of is a summary of some of the things that I learned as a student at MIT. The number one, be humble but don't be humiliated. Humility comes from within, the humiliation is imposed upon you by others. Kind of talking about something stress as we find at MIT a lot of this stuff. It has nothing to do with structural materials selection. But I wrote an article for the faculty newsletter about leadership, management, education, et cetera. I wrote that about ten or eleven years ago. I wrote it, so Bob Brown was, had not become president, he was my chief Provost at the time, is now president of Boston University, when he left for Boston University, I sent him an email, said bye. But I sent this to, well actually when I wrote this for the faculty newsletter, it's sort of about thirty-some years at MIT and what I've observed, what things that night came to me. And a lot of alumni sent me a class of like, "a smart girl I read it," and they say wow, that's right on, okay. And it talks about the strengths of MIT and weaknesses.

I said we talked about communications. It turns out, I will hand this out because I handed it out all the time to students, and it turns out when I started as a young faculty member, my department head Walter Owen brought me in and said, no matter what anyone else does, publish or perish, okay. And so I published papers and graduate students and research articles and all this other stuff. But what happened is after the World Trade Center collapse, about three weeks afterwards, Joel Clark got a request from the editor of a metallurgical journal saying, will you write an article about World Trade Center collapse, because everybody was writing articles about the World Trade Center collapse. And Joel says, well, ask Tom Eagar, so he knows me, said, would you write an article for the Journal of Metals? And JOM, well, so this is published in December 2001, took me about three or four weeks to gather some information and write this article. I spent three hours, oh, writing this article, I research now Christopher Musso, my graduate student, he was now at Clemson, and he helped me with some research, so he's co-author. But I rote it, the reason I was willing to write it, I was sick of hearing all the misinformation and incorrect information that was in the press, okay, the newspapers.

I can tell this story but I used to read Time magazine in high school religiously every week, okay. I got to MIT in the middle of the Vietnam War demonstrations, for the first time in my life I was right in the presence of some of the news. And when I would read what was said in Time magazine, what I compared to what I saw the present, I realized there was no correlation whatsoever. Time magazine is incomplete fantasies, complete fiction, and I quit reading it. And every now and then someone will tell me, oh there's an article in Time, I'll go and read it, and it's a complete fiction. Time magazine, Newsweek, US News and World Report, they're all fictional, okay, they have nothing to do with reality. I only know a couple of magazines that I think are reasonably accurate, in terms of what I read, the stories that are things about that I know about, that I can actually recognize the story, okay. I just like it.

And as a result, then I'll talk to you a little bit later about a question I got from Technology Review, let's go. I will spend a lot of time talking to reporters with the idea, I want them to try to get it, okay. But anyway, so I did agree to write this article, I spent three hours writing it. And I sometimes say, what can you say, nothing at all about something? Turns out you need to stay quiet back if you know the basics. I knew the basic physics, and this one also chemistry with fuel combustion which I knew because I'm a welding engineer and because I've done fire investigations and things. The first thing I do, and the reason I agreed to write it, I know you don't melt steel in a fire. Everybody, oh the fire was so hot it melted the steel, that's why the World Trade [Center] came down. I knew that wasn't true. So I had to research it. And I researched, why this guys over civil engineering were giving a seminar about it. Christmas, I went to taped it for me, I got permission to tape it, and I watched their seminar, and they were misreading.

The article, you want, but the thing is I wrote it with the idea that I was writing this for high school science. And so I wasn't trying to be flowery or get complex, I wrote it so someone with a little bit of education could understand. And in fact that's part of my philosophy about teaching. A lot of faculty try to make something so complex to prove how much smarter they are than you. Well a good teacher makes things as simple as possible because they realize the students are probably smarter than them. And I certainly know that many of my students are smarter than me. I entered MIT as a freshman in the bottom third of my class, okay, I had terrible preparation in high school. And I'm not really all that smart in a lot of ways, anyway. And I hate to do derivations and I hate to do problem sets, so I don't make the students. But for the first ten or eleven years after the World Trade Center, if you Googled "WTC collapse," this was the number one hit. More people are reading this article. Within a year there were websites out against me by the conspiracy theorists, okay, you know the conspiracy theories of 9/11 truthers, this day, they hate me, because people can understand this, okay. And they're sure that there was a conspiracy. I can explain every physical phenomena they talk about much more simply than they can, if you just go back to the basis of science. And so the philosophy here actually through this course is, I'd like you to, I'd like to point out things to you that you already knew, okay.

I tell that story, apologies, but when I was in 1988, Lester Thurow became dean of Sloan School of Management. He wanted to build bridges to the School of Engineering. And so he decided that we had at the time a program for senior executives at Sloan School, and this was a nine-week intensive program. You basically lived out at MIT Endicott House. You paid $50,000 tuition for nine weeks, and Sloan School faculty would come in and teach you eight hours a day, six days a week. You do some homework, it wasn't that you would get graded, because most of them, I was the, is the only academic out of fifty there. There was one, I was 38 years old, who was a Dr. [Nazir], oxygens 33. We were the two youngest in class. Most people were 40 to 60, 45 to 60. And many of them were CEOs of companies, with a couple guys from General Motors. They were just managers, businesses, but at General Motors a manager of a business is typically a billion-dollar business, okay. One of them was in charge of all the lighting for all the cars, that's a several-billion-dollar business. So not everybody had fancy titles, but they were all managing billion-dollar companies. And so during an [advanced management program], so it has one of these things, they call it advanced management program, it's generalized thirteen weeks. And essentially a company will send someone back who has never had real business school training, give them some business school training, that environment, and then they have the imprimatur of the business school, okay.

And so Lester Thurow was in Sloan School. He had been making this little school, about a week before Christmas, they sent around a note saying any engineering faculty member who would like to take this nine-week intensive program starting in February, they're going to give out one scholarship and waive tuition, $50,000 tuition. And so I thought, well, you know, I've taken some business courses when I first worked in the industry, I decided. So I applied. I suspect I was the only person out of 350 faculty of engineering who applied, so I got it. It started like my mother came in third in the French contest in high school. It turns out the A-tube, only three people showed up, she came in third. So I got selected because I was probably the only person who was willing to completely clear my schedule for five weeks straight. And so I went through the Sloan, I took this program, so I'm now Sloan below this in terms of giving money.

And Lester came in. Lester at the time, he was rich, he had written books, he had wrote The Zero-Sum Game, he was on Meet the Press and things, he was on Face the Nation, things like that on TV. He called himself an economics educator, his colleagues at Sloan economics department called him Less Than Thorough, okay, because he was a little simple about things. But Lester came in, and he would get, at that time this was 1988, he was getting a thirty-thousand-dollar lecture, which is sort of like Hillary, board of directors or something, company, or something. Thirty thousand dollars in 1980s was almost. But Lester was just a very engaging speaker. They were all enamored with him and they all just thought this talk was wonderful, we are free.

But so the second time he came in, you know we came in twice in the nine weeks, I was just there analyzing, what was it about his communication style that made him such an engaging speaker and stuff. And everyone else would just, they were still enamored, man, just reveling in this his words, pearls of wisdom from the Lester. And so I was just trying to analyze it. When he finished, I realized he didn't say anything. But it was elegant.

And so it was great. That was a great turning point in my career. I used to go to conferences and I'd get up and I'd talk about the technical details and what I've been doing research on, prof. a couple of differential equations or whatever, impress everybody. And after that I decided, no, just think of the right way to say it. So it turns out 1989 I had to give a keynote talk on resistance spot welding at the welding conference in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, somewhere in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. And I got up to give this keynote lecture and I said, they put three thousand spot welds in the average automobile because you need two thousand good ones. That's something that people will remember. In fact a year later I was at a welding conference at a cocktail party and right behind me I heard someone say, you know they put three thousand spot welds in an average automobile because you need two thousand good ones. It's not what you say, it's how you say it many times.

I still love Lester's thing. I saw it, a couple years later, he was over at the Cambridge Marriott, going to talk to a bunch of people in industry, and sort of lamenting that we lose some of our top faculty at Sloan School, they go off the road to the southern business school. And we all knew he was sort of talking about Robert Merton. Maybe it's Neville Robert, but no, Robert Merton worked with Black and Scholes on derivatives. Those guys worked out the math for derivatives trading and predicting the value of something in the future fairly accurately, by, you know, today. And anyway, Robert Merton left MIT, he had a graduate student in there, Black and Scholes, my controller passed away, though Robert Merton, Robert Merton went up to Harvard Business School. And he won the Nobel Prize for what he did with Black-Scholes. They were dead, we wanted, but Lester, he never mentions Merton by name, but he said fortunately, "they tend to hire our extinct volcanoes."

You don't have to explain what he's talking about. They're right, it was a metaphor that speaks for itself, right? So I learned that it's not what you say, it's how you say it, and keep it simple stupid. And that's basically what this article is about. If you're interested you can read it. And it turns out I will stand by this article fifteen years later as being correct, okay, because I just talked about the fundamental physics, okay. We should all go, so we're going over seven of us, can you explain to our sentence gloves? I think I can. Although the truthers think I'm all wrong, okay.

But if you read this thing you'll find that the reason the first tower went down, it wasn't because they had a fire, we had fires in skyscrapers before. But it was the first time we'd had a fire with 20,000 gallons of fuel all on one floor. There's a nice picture, it's not in the article, but I'm sending see it till later, just showing one floor just completely red, okay, all right. Each floor is about an acre in size. Ordinarily in a fire in a building, you'll start over in the corner over here or somewhere, and by the time it gets to the far corner, this was one acre, each floor is one acre, everything over here has burned out the fuel and starting to cool down and gotten its strength back, whereas the stuff is hot, this still part, in this case we just heat up everything all at once. So all the steel lost seventy percent. That was enough to explain everything. You had 20 books and an article about how I could get a factor of 5 reduction in strength. And I knew it, this is that big quantity, that's why the truthers, they hated, everybody hated, told me about, it's hard to realism, okay, I know. Okay, but the point was, on the first two towers, we knew it was just fuel everywhere, right.

Guess what was in Building Seven? It was the emergency control station for the city of New York. It had a 20,000-gallon tank of diesel fuel to run emergency generators. It had diesel fuel piped all through the building. So as it caught on fire and all of a sudden they started violating these fuel lines. The building had a huge fire, a huge external fire built, 20,000 gallons of fuel inside the building. So don't put twenty, don't put swimming pools of diesel fuel in your buildings, because if they catch on fire, muscle flex. So it basically, it fell down for the exact same reason, of a huge fire all at once, as opposed to be smaller bar progressive, okay.

You're going to have to get used to my kind of giving preface to get to the punch line, okay. Because I can say always, kind of, Building Seven, panicked and stuff, but I had to explain it well. The truthers are right, we have, we've had fires in other skyscrapers but they didn't all come down. But we never had someone fly 20,000 gallons of jet fuel into the building Zenith, okay, all at once, and just put the whole floor on, kind of. So Building Seven was failing the same reason but it wasn't a jet, it was another source of 20,000 gallons of fuel, okay. So all three of them had 20,000 gallons of fuel, and no one had ever designed for an extra twenty thousand gallons of fuel. People are, so in my opinion that's the reason.

Now it turns out that the guide, the cover of, US government spent several hundred million dollars investigating this. And the guy who was in charge of the investigation was a guy, professor at some Thunder, would have been a faculty member, and so when, Sharon didn't get tenure, went out to this, and he was head of their fire investigation team for the NIST study, NIST, world trade center class. And that were important about this thing, okay. If you read it, what can I say, it's four pages, they said, right, you know, the give them two more detail, still questionable, okay. Other questions? Okay.

So we're going to start talking about structural materials, a couple things I want to say. First of all I've been using this cartoon for a number of years at the graduate school of business now. [Tom shows a cartoon.] I want you all to, I know you all want to make money, but today we're going to discuss making things. I hope, things to students is the better, three students at the back. What, things? I don't want to make things, no, it says I want to make money. The third one says, listen, let's do the business school, we can make some money that way. So that's part of the philosophy of things nowadays.

So materials. There are various types of materials. This is of course a course on structural materials, as opposed to functional materials. And the Japanese sort of pointed this word functional materials. Structural materials, have to remember, are used in very large quantities, and they're used, by definition as the structural materials, for their mechanical properties: tensile, compressive, shear. Okay, we're going to talk about things over here on your left.

Functional materials are often very small volumes, and they're used for a multitude of properties which can be chemical, magnetic, electrical, optical, thermal. Or you can start adding two properties: piezoelectric. What's piezoelectric? That's mechanical force, it gives electricity or vice versa, electricity will give you a mechanical displacement. That's how the Navy does sonar, they put electrical waves into a piezoelectric material and they can get a displacement out, who moves the waves. Magnetothermic, before, try to figure out ways to make more efficient refrigerators. Thermoelectric, electrochemical, and the list could go on forever, okay. So when you're talking functional materials, you might be talking about materials that are worth millions of dollars an ounce, okay. Any of it. But you might have to be using a lot of times, you might be using micrograms, so some of these things might be a catalyst, okay.

But when we're talking, two chemical properties, structural materials, we're trying to talk more glorious. Little NB by that, things like, your ships, okay. [Tom shows images of structural applications.] The reactors, okay, are you to be talking about. And all composite aircraft, this is the first large all-composite aircraft, is the V-22 Osprey. The Marine helicopter, about 60 million a pop, it's all graphite carbon fiber composite, could not fly without that material. Try to make something heavy like aluminum, it's too heavy a block, so they have to use a very expensive material. And you get to other materials that are more expensive, this was the X-33 space plane somewhere here. This is a piece of the X-33 hydrogen tank, in the X-33 space plane, that was fabricated for twelve thousand dollars a pound. Now it's not very heavy but that's the price of that, okay.

One of the things we're going to learn is, prices, actually I talk about structural materials because we use them in large volumes, and we want to know how much it's going to cost to build something. If you're talking about a spacecraft, we're going to learn that the value of a pound saved in a spacecraft is twenty thousand dollars a pound for material in Earth orbit. People want to talk about colonizing the moon. Well okay, at twenty thousand dollars a pound, I don't think we're going to be sending a lot of people up in space, okay. The millionaires can go, in fact if you pay a several million dollars to the Soviets they'll give you a ride up into space, okay. But it's sort of expensive to get payload into space.

What's the value of a pound saved in a car? Two dollars. What's the value of a pound saved in a commercial aircraft like a Boeing 737? Two hundred dollars. What's the value of a pound saved in a chef, in a railroad? Twenty cents a pound. So we have orders of magnitude, railroad cars to aircraft, commercial aircraft, and spacecraft. The space shuttle was supposed to get the price of payload into orbit down. Back in the 1970s it was ten thousand dollars a pound. They were supposed to drop the price to a thousand dollars a pound at the space shuttle. If you look over the life, thirty-year life of the space shuttle, it came in about thirty thousand dollars a pound. It was more expensive because they had a couple of failures, okay, they got very expensive. But in any case so the price of a material is very important, but it's not the dominant factor in selection of the material you buy.

Paralyzer, so when we say one pound saved in this work two dollars, right, what's he mean by that? If I have a Ford Fiesta and I look at the mileage and I said, it's going to have a hundred thousand mile life before it's ready to scrap, okay. And you say, okay, if I could drop the weight, then curves I'll show you weight versus mileage, right, you can take the slope of that and you can say okay, if I took 100 pounds out how much gasoline would I save you over 100,000 miles? It's about two hundred dollars worth of gasoline per 100-pound savings. That's two dollars a pound saved. Now the calculations will differ for a spacecraft, for an aircraft. Commercial aircraft typical life is a hundred thousand hours, this stuff. The number is 100,000 hours rather than miles. And it turns out if you look at how much fuel is burned per hour, versus the weight, you can plot a bunch of aircraft, weight versus pounds of fuel, you'll get the same type of curve as cars. But now you're per hundred thousand hours of operation. And typically because of fatigue cracks and other things, after a hundred thousand hours just sent in tears over, parking in the desert. You can get spare parts out of there if you need, but that's what they do with aircraft when they get old age. That's two hundred dollars a pound.

It used to be that they put magazines on airplanes for the passengers to read. Vice presidents decide how many magazines and which magazines, because the magazines, plus 200 hours a pound, carry them out, and over the life. And so coffee pots in the galley and things like that, they're very cost-conscious about those things. And it's worth 200 hours of pound, that's a very different business than an automobile to deal with two dollars a pound. It's very different than a railroad at 20 cents a pound, okay. In fact I'll give you an article, I'll write and post it about this, what's the value of a pound of weight, and to get a pound of payload into orbit, that's not ours, okay. But for a spacecraft, go look it up, it's about twenty thousand dollars an hour, a payload into orbit. Take, if you want to send up telecommunication selling satellite, and you weigh the satellite, and then you figure how many it cost you, a hundred million dollars to send it up there, you're going to find about twenty thousand dollars a pound payload, work.

So they're different criteria, but when you're talking about, what is the value of a pound saved, that's the question. It goes up towards 19th, between those, something that not like you, they certainly don't talk about, the Wall Street Journal, they're all evil, that matter, why you talking to spacecraft, for a railroad town save pounds pound, right. Remember who was it said, data chips, they're all the same. Some guys run for president, maybe it was a president, but anyway something son, presidents twenty years ago said, computer chips, potato chips, what's the matter with what we manufacture, okay. So that's enough for today, and any questions? I'll be around every day.