Thread: amateur vs pro
View Single Post
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 1st 10, 03:25 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
brent brent is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Default amateur vs pro

On Mar 30, 2:08*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.


Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?


3rd Baron John Strutt

During the time he managed his late father's barony from 1873 to 1879,
he did some research. The Theory of Sound was published in 1878.

Then, after he left the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge in 1884, he continued
his research at home.

For all I know, Cambridge didn't pay him either.. he was definitely a
"man of means" and sort of typifies the "gentleman amateur"

Antoine Lavoisier or Joeseph Fourier would be other examples. Both had
"jobs" that paid well and didn't require a lot of their time, so they
could spend their spare time and cash on science/engineering.


when amateurs get bored out of their mind of the activity in question
they can take a break from it. Professionals cannot. They must
soldier on until they get interested in their livelihood again.

I believe that the "quitting (or resting) is not an option" is what
makes professionals so much better than amateurs in almost all cases.

Can there even be such a thing as an amateur soldier?