Existence Followup

I have decided to cut the timeframe for my follow-up down. At this point it is clearly evident that the vast majority of people don't really care much about this issue. There were many readers, but very few actually wanted to contribute, regardless of the forum.

This all came about because I wanted to help my (former) fellow designers. I wanted to create a robust and flexible toothed model of bevel gears so that whoever needed such, for whatever reason, could utilize this method.

Why 'former'? Two years ago I was faced with a decision, I chose door #3. I no longer work in engineering. If you wish, you can read up on this a little at

King David did some research and ran across this.

I would like to know, if faced with a similar situation knowing you have a wife and three young children, what would you do? Honestly, I miss my former career very much. This is why I wanted to contribute, no matter how small, to the field. But, it seems I no longer have the desire, thank you David Janes. For, he has personally made it his endeavor to piss on the last remaining embers of my former life. How does it make you feel?

I do believe if you truly want to help people (which is one of the fundamental functions of engineers) then you should go into teaching as well. You might learn something of value yourself, namely how to communicate with your fellow man. I've been watching you. It is rather comfortable, sitting snuggly behind your monitor and lashing out at people with your acid tongue. It is quite something else to do it face-to-face. It takes a very cold heart to watch someone wither from the inside.

When David L. Geesaman was the wise sage of

I could not recall a time when he was so procedural and thorough in administering negative comments. Without a doubt, David Janes is intelligent and knowledgeable. These traits don't make a person wise. A wise man admonishes with benevolence not malevolence. David, you wanted your name in lights. Well, there you are. Yes, he was the one who prompted this personal fiasco.

Now, on to a lighter tone.

"...that place where everyone, from users to in touch management, says 'what does this buy us' and finds a void."

As far as toothed gearing is concerned, my focus, I offer the following: Why would a company such as Stock Drive Products / Sterling Instrument, a PTC PartsLink partner

go to such trouble creating 3D bevel gear models for download in which the user can specify the number of teeth, from 2 to the number of teeth for the specific model. I cannot find any evidence of crowning in any of the models I downloaded. Then there is RCV Engines, for on their technology page, one can download a slide presentation, If one cares to do so, check out the illustration on page 3. David Janes can testify himself that the gearing displayed was in fact created in Pro/ENGINEER. I had contacted the company upon my first site of this in an engineering journal. The engineer who replied was happy to supply me with the company's models. These I passed along to Mr. Janes, for his majesty to review. He never did get back to me on this point.

"So, again, I'm the reductionist, the anti-romantic, the objectivist, the skeptic: why is this needed/necessary? make a case for its utility!" Somewhere within these organizations the decision was made, by upper management, to divert resources away from other matters to pursue the individual endeavors. Feel free to contact the companies to inquire as to why these foolhardy ventures were undertaken.

"Better ~ hobby, gear design theorist striving for the perfect tooth form."

Yes, this was somewhat of a hobby, to keep my sanity. But for those of you who had a chance to view the original text, you will recall straight from the beginning, "Of course no gear, according to Charles Cooper in his article Issues of Gear Design Using 3D Solid Modeling Systems on

is truly accurate using CAD systems." I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE PERSUING PERFECT FORM!!! I just wanted to make a good looking, robust, and flexible model for people, I must reiterate, to use for whatever reason.

When I had sent the newer instruction set to Lord Janes, his reply was equally narrow minded and full of excess rambling. I quote, "I've gone through your new and old writings on gear design. Unfortunately, I am a part time doctor, full time designer with Pro/e. I've taken about

10 PTC-authored courses on Pro/e and have done another couple dozen tutorials on the same. The job you've so generously offered ~ to be your technical advisor and editor ~ is worthy of a professional making $80k/annum. The job was made definitely worthy of such a princely sum by the fact that I'm faced with merging the information from two documents to obtain all the information necessary for an adequate tryout." The two documents stand separately. Apparently this was lost on him.

Mark out.