Boy, but I hate poor engineering!

[Egon]

Ahh shuckings ehh Andy. You musta missed the P51 fiasco of several hours ago.

But thank you muchly. Need all the help I can get.

Egon /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Egon]

The formal training may offer some tools to augment the native abilities. It may also form a standard frame of reference.

Egon

 

[Taylortractornut]

When i worked as a machinist and fabricator after college I ran into alot of engineers that would draw a print out and have all sots of dimensions and there was no way to build it right. We had a fixture for a saw that had to fit in a 42 inch space but the internal parts dimensions measured 52 inches. Ive also had them do the same on dirt moving jobs. I often would rather solve the problem from the start I like to hands on stuff myself. I worked with a 65 year old engineer that had worked for R.G. LeTourneau and told of stories where Mr. Letourneau would take a tape measure out and a few few lay out tools and solve engineering problems on the floor of the the shop. My friend said that always stuck with him and helped him through alot of desgns. He also stated how cost was now the factor in many designs. I worked for a hydraulic pump company out of college that made hydraulic pumps and their engineers had alot of problems with their pumps and motors because they were trying to save too much money on new molds and other parts used in making the housings. It is sad to think about the cost vs quality policy some companies are using now.

 

[_RaT_]

Are we talking about the guys that drive trains?

 

[Soundguy]

Don't laugh.. A friend and myself had a job waiting on us with CSX.. cross country stuff. We were one day away from going.. but signed up for college instead when our parents flipped out.

Soundguy

 

[Egon]

No trains although I have worked for Canadian Pacific Railway as a surveyor- draftsman [ ink on velum with nibbed pens] Does that kinda date me.

It referfers to Stationary Power Engineering as in steam plants.

Egon

 

[mrcaptainbob]

Ink on vellum with nibbed pens! Wow! Thanks for bringing back that memory! After 34 years in the auto industry, I found the best engineers were the ones with the dirt under their nails. There's a lot to be said for theory and books. There's so much to add from hands on experience.

 

[nomad]

"Experience" is a different concept in some fields than the concept of "Experience" we know in our daily life. Experience in technology & science is nothing without the knowledge of theory. This is so due to educational system in the world. If you are educated/learnt yourself independent of the education system in the world, then we can discuss about the worth of experience. Otherwise, you are experienced of the current knowledge given by current education system with all its mistakes/errors/etc. If, say, the engine piston is designed wrong, you will have to be an experienced person on that wrong designed piston. Experience is worth only in our daily life. In science/technology, theories & books limit you - experience is keeping these theories & books in your mind. A good engineer remembers these well. The best engineer creates new things by realizing the errors in theories & books. The latters are rare, very rare.

 

[RoyJackson]

"There's a lot to be said for theory and books. There's so much to add from hands on experience. "

How true!
Downside of a lack of experience is the engineer can develop designs without manufacturability (or maintanability) in mind.

It's a sad fact, but a lot of engineers never get to the shop floor to really get a grasp on their trade.

CAD makes it worse if they're not experienced. I see a lot of this working in Quality Assurance/Control. I'm working as a Quality Engineer right now, but started off as a floor inspector (machining, mostly with stamping and a fair amount of injection molding in the back ground).

"We had a fixture for a saw that had to fit in a 42 inch space but the internal parts dimensions measured 52 inches"

That's referred to as a dimensional stack up. That's also why one sees (in the title block of the drawing) a Designer and a Checker then approvals. All too often, the checker's job is just lip service.

As far as CAD..I love it for the ease of design, but it follows that old adage: "To err is Human; but if you really want to screw up, use a computer..."

 

[jinman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( the engineer can develop designs without manufacturability )</font>

Roy, many years ago I taught electrical wire harness manufacturing and installation on the F-16. The harness installation drawings all showed harness routing without taking into consideration that there might be 20 or 30 runs of various diameters running through the same area. The only way to predict the lengths was by using a mockup. Even then, you had to be careful and build in allowances for variation. After spending megabucks to assemble an airplane and install a harness, if you come up 1" too short, things get a little tense. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

There are just some things that require more than engineering to ensure a correct fit. The human factors of using the same crew to do the job the same way each time is critical to high-tech products. As we used to say, "It's almost always something low-tech and simple that gets you." /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif