Simple Machines Hueristic For Developing Quality Technology?

Some people start with a cute idea that doesn't work, and add stuff until it works, or until the money runs out. Usually, the money runs out first. Sometimes those people are called engineers. The appellation is erroneous, imho.

Some people start with a conservative design of complexity appropriate to the problem, and remove stuff until it doesn't work anymore, then back up one step. It would be fair to call those people engineers, or maybe empiricists. The product tends to be functional, if not inspired, and can be cost effective in a market that is not terribly competitive. The technique will produce a local minimum, though not necessarily a global minimum, in cost.

Real Engineers, with a capital E, and I don't mean necessarily with a P.E., will extend that second technique by removing huge pieces of the product at once, by combining functions or redefining the function of the product. The best example that comes to mind is hidden windshield wipers in automobiles. Concealing the wipers under the trailing edge of the hood did nothing to improve the actual function of the wipers themselves, but it removed from the car a panel called a 'cowl screen' or some such, that was typically very difficult to produce and to paint. The cheapest part of any machine is the part that's not there anymore.

In summary, I think that the best answer to the question is this: The sole best universally translatable metric by which to measure compexity is ... money.

-Mike-

automobiles.

Mike, Do you know for sure an engineer came up with this idea? To me, it sounds like something an industrial designer did during the initial styling process while the car was still sketches and styling clay. Dan

As a follow-on question, Is there such thing as Engineering theory? I know that physics describes the fundamental limitations of engineering, but is there a discipline that encompasses a study of the best approaches/solutions for engineering problems?

I don't know whose idea it was, or what their title was. I wish it was my idea; at that time, automakers rewarded suggestions implemented with a small fraction of the savings accrued in the first year. Doesn't sound like much, but saving a penny on each car would net you a bonus that would buy you a nice new car.

That was intended to serve as an example of an important point: The best way to optimize a part is to remove it, assuming you can make some other part perform its function, or the product can do without the function.

-Mike-

In decades past, that's what they taught in engineering school.

I'm getting the impression that some schools today are teaching people how to drive Computer Assisted _something_ programs, and calling that 'engineering'.

-Mike-

Aircraft designers have been known to say: "There's nothing lighter than nothing."

Which, together with that well known design principle "KISS" ("Keep it simple, stupid!") argues for simplification or elimination where possible.

However..... The modern automobile is incredibly more complicated than its forbears

- still, (especially if Japanese) it will run with less or no repairs than ever before for a good ten years, and without touching the engine compartment save oil, filters, maybe a belt - for 120,000 miles.

The method seems to have been: identify the high maintenance items: redesign to eliminate.

• (contact breaker to crank sensor, electronic igintion.)

• (carburreter mixture float adjustment to computer controlled port injection)

• (generator to alternator)

etc., etc....

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

I'm getting the idea that every discipline (be it engineering, computer science, physics, etc.) has a sort of meta-discipline that comes with it. This is usually called theory (or philosophy) and is often neglected in favor of the less abstract nature of the "doing" part of the discipline.

The funny thing is these meta-disciplines seem to be the really important part and all the meta-disciplines seem to have alot in common with each other.

In any event, do you know of any really good book that captures the heart of the "Theory of Engineering"?

I know of no such book.

"The Soul of a New Machine" by Tracy Kidder captures a snapshot of what engineering was like, a couple of decades ago. It's not what you seek, but it's a really good book.

U.S. state licensing boards operate under the assumption that new engineers will somehow acquire five years of progressively increasing responsibility, mentoring under more experienced engineers. It may still be possible for civil engineers; in other disciplines, I don't think it's possible to do it anymore.

Anything resembling apprenticeship programs have been dismantled, on the advice of business school graduates who assume that it will always be possible to hire fully trained and experienced engineers from someone else. The effects of that idiotic philosophy are starting to appear everywhere. The business school graduates would all call it an unforeseen consequence. The engineers all saw it coming.

-Mike-

I agree,it's what Engineering used to be about.

I have a theory that a really GOOD engineer must be born that way inclined, then spend a lot of his childhood making things as a form of play. Then after much theory and study time he can begin to think of himself as an engineer. When I got my engineering degree one of the better Mech Eng Prof's told us " Today you received your licence to start learning". How true it was.

"Steven Mason" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com...

There are some books on 'product development' where they have the following theoratecial approach: (if I remember well)

- Define your problem

- Divide in subproblems

- find different solutions dor ecach of these subproblems (e.g. brainstorming, etc ....)

- make a selection using some kind of selection method (matrix methods, pos-neg aspects .....)

- use the different ways to recombine those things

-and itinerate ...

This is also what they told us to use when developing a machine.

The following books where mentioned as reference, just have a look if this is what you are looking for:

- Engineering design and Design for manufacturing (John R. Dixon, Corrado Poli)

- Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods (N.F.M. Roozenburg, J. Eekels)

Timothy