Member
+1^^Originally Posted by Dan Friedrichs
Given sufficient resources, anyone can build ... oh, wait. I think I said that already?
There is a profound disconnect here about what ‘engineering’ entails. Failing that understanding, any discussion of titles is pointless.
Uncle.
Contributor
Thanks foryour explanation Dan.
If it is the definitive explanation of what engineering is then I must concede defeat.
I have enjoyed the debate and education, and appreciate your tolerance.
I am disappointed, but it is what it is.
I think i now have a better understanding of the difference between us.
Although we both design products we have very different approaches.
I think that you operate in the world of what is, and i in the world of what could be.
I design things how i think they could or should be. I have no guidelines or roadmap to follow, i use my knowledge and imagination to design something how i think it should work.
I don't always take forever and do trial and error as you have suggested Malcolm, in fact i can think of a few instances where i have come up with solutions quite quickly, maybe quicker than you could calculate.
Being able to calculate is valuable, but you also need to be able to see the potential that everyone else can't.
About 18 years ago i did a few jobs for an engineering firm; they hired me because they liked the way i designed stuff. ( initially)
they asked me to design a cable safety switch; They gave me a bunch of criteria; two cables , one each side, a lockout when a cable is pulled; pull one, cable it trips the lockout, pull two cables it trips the lockout, pinch one cable and pull the other it trips the lockout etc. they told me that i was to pickup the old switch in the office and take it home, examine it to see if i could simplify it.
So of course I didn't pick it up,
but instead went home and designed a switch from the criteria I was given.
When I took it to the company, i got a good smackdown; I was howled at for not taking the old switch, i was told to sit down, shutup and take notes and follow orders, if i wanted to work for them. Then i was given a prototype mockup of a switch that one of their engineers had started, but not completed, and i was told to take it home and complete it. I took it home fussed with it for an hour or two then threw it in the garbage and went back to my own design. The thing is my design worked, it met all of the criteria, was a simple design, minimum of parts and easy to produce. The original design was a standard dual cable, dual plunger type design, and quite a good model. The engineer that tried to modify it and "didn't" finish it, probably couldn't. He took a good design and tried to take parts away and make it work with a single plunger and two cables, and simply could not do it.
My switch had a box with a disk inside that rotated on its axis, a torsion spring, a spring loaded lockout pin, and a single cable that went through the box up over a pin in the disk down over the other pin up and out the other side of the box, when you pulled the cable to attach it, it rotated the disk, and at certain point you could push the lockout pin into the disk, you release the tension on the cable and the lockout pin is held in place, when you pulled the cable the lockout pin drops out. Simple design.
I did not look at the original switch because i did not want to be influenced by the design.
but i worked from what it needed to do and the base parts i needed to do it.
Another job with another engineering firm, i increased the productivity or their large gantry router 400%, without doing any "calculations" or getting permission. I had complained about it several times and was told to back off , that they had tweak everything possible. When the operator went on vacation, I cut 5" off of the 12" long cutter, changed the computer program from one program to two, doubled the spindle RPM, decreased the feed, increased the stepover from 10% to 80%, and set the stepdown from 1/2" to 4" and set the program to only cut parts, no machining waste material, which it had been doing. I did it in one day, they had been operating the router for 6 1/2 years and there were a dozen engineers there. I did it because i knew it could be done, i didn't ask the boss, because i knew he would say no, (i have no training remember.) is was only cutting polystyrene, and it was only a job after all.
That's how I work. I upset some people because I question them, and do what i think needs to be done, the way that I think it should be done. I get results.
So i guess that I don't do engineering.
Keep an open mind, there are different ways of working.
Thanks, i enjoyed the debate.
I
[OP]
Contributor
Mark, Maybe this should be another thread about 'bucking' the real engineers. Here's my story:
I identify as a former industrial arts teacher. I taught (badly) for about 8 years and then got into programming which was a much better fit. My specialty is data communications. I was originally hired to write DEC assembly but quickly migrated the software to PCs. I did that for a while and then moved to Tandems which is where this story takes place. The time frame is pre-internet, so think serial communications.
We wanted to link a database in NY with one in Kansas City. A request made to our Tandems in KC would be submitted to the NY HP computers and the response returned. To make the connections robust, it was decided to transmit on two lines over disparate networks. The receiving software at each end would have to 'arbitrate' the feeds to insure that every packet arrived. I was tasked with the arbitration on the Tandems and a counterpart did the same thing on the HPs in NY. A senior vice president with a very impressive academic pedigree wrote the code, handed it off to us and told us to implement. Here's where it gets complicated. I'm a pretty simple guy and I like my software to be simple as well. The code I was given work like a series of 'gates' where we would choose one feed or the other. There were over 40 interlocking rules to determine which feed we wanted. I couldn't understand it. Assuming it was my problem, I went home to my little Apple II+ and started from scratch. I cleared my mind and tried to solve the problem fresh.
Basically the feeds consisted of numbered packets. We need to produce from two feeds, a single feed that contains every packet.
I came to the conclusion that choosing a feed was just too complicated and prone to error. My solution was vanishingly simple. I simply combined the feeds and threw away the spares. We get packet 1 and the last packet we had was 0, we take it. If we get another packet 1, we toss it. That's it. I did have to have one special rule for the case where a packet is missing on both feeds. One virtue of my solution is that I could accept N feeds. Just more trash to throw away.
So now I had a dilemma. The guy that gave me the code was one of those people that's a little hard to explain. He's not arrogant exactly, It just that it's never occurred to him that he could be wrong. He also didn't understand the unique way that Tandems work. I knew that if I told him, I would be disciplined and forced to go back and make his stuff work. What to do? I implemented my solution and told a few other line programmers who agreed with me. The HP guy was sort of a snake so I never told him. I felt bad. He slaved over the thing and never did get it to work right and wound up demoted from a manager position. Finally, they just accepted a .05% data loss rate. Mine lost nothing.
So there I was. A 'blue collar' programmer with no degree doing what I thought was right in implementing a solution that worked perfectly for years. I never did tell management. It's kind of an interesting story to me. It would make a good case study in employee manager relations and business ethics. I know I did the wrong thing but I felt at the time and still feel that I was in a bad situation.
Contributor
Roger, Great story.
Sometimes you just have to do what you feel is right.
These situations of course are not specific to an any profession but are a human nature problem.
It is about, power, fear, position and ego. It pretty sad when you think about how much more we could achieve, if we could manage to harness all of the best work and best ideas, and distribute the credit to those who have earned it.
I have worked in many woodworking and cabinet shops and seen people doing dumb stuff, and you ask the why and they just say " that's what i was told to do" You know that's stupid..right.... "yup".
Lot of the time, people are rightfully afraid to challenge superiors, and are afraid of retaliation, loosing their jobs etc, so they stay quiet.
I guess that in reality in any organization, you have two problems to solve, one is the actual problem, and the other is the people that are in your way.
So we bumble on.
[OP]
Contributor
I've had several of these moral dilemmas over the years. Over 20 years ago, I lied in Federal Court. I was called for jury duty and the way the feds did it was that I was in a pool for 3 months. I had to call in every day and enter my individual id to see if I had to report. The jury coordinator assured us that, if we had some sort of conflict, all we had to do was call her and we would be relieved for the day. I had a meeting with a co-worker who was flying in to Kansas City from Tokyo to see me. I called the jury coordinator and she said no problem but that I should call in anyway. While she was in the air, I called in, entered my id number and was instructed to report. At this point, two things happened. First, I lost all trust in this particular court and the coordinator. Second, I was in a panic to insure that I would not have to serve. What to do?
Keep in mind that I sincerely wanted to serve. My company would have had no problem with it and I really do take it seriously.
The case was a civil suit. At one point the plaintiffs attorney asked a question that gave me my opportunity. "Would any of you have problem awarding punitive damages?" My hand shot up and I was excused for cause.
I resented the court for putting me in that position. I resented that they had such arbitrary control. I particularly resented that I had so little trust in the court that I found it necessary to lie to correct the situation.
Contributor
Statute of limitations?
Contributor
Why didn't you call the coordinator again to find out what went wrong? Seems like you lost all trust for what may have just been a missed communication issue.
Contributor
If I want to know what the overwhelming majority of people think about “noises we make and all agree have a given meaning”, I look in a dictionary. Mr. Hennebury’s use of the word looks more like what I see in my dictionary than what you seem to think.
“The design, building, and use of engines, machines and structures.”
“The action of working artfully to bring something about.”
“Engineering Science” might be more what you have in mind: “the parts of science concerned with the physical and mathematical basis of engineering and machine technology.”
Respectfully.
Contributor
I am an engineer. I intentionally did not become licensed (but did pass the EIT).
I am also a scientist. I do not have a PhD, but do have a MS from an elite institution and have worked for years in the space of molecular diagnostics.
I have managed large groups of engineers, and at one time had a business card that read 'zoo keeper'.
I dont get too butt hurt on what you call me, and do not get too hung up on words other than a mechanism to communicate by. I do believe there are 'legal' definitions that matter (like if you put your structural stamp on a design and it kills someone... part of why I intentionally did not get the PE).
Otherwise:
“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”
― Zhuangzi
Contributor
Other than your revelation being public, i wouldn't be too concerned about your choice.
Truth and lie have no weight of their own only that which is given them by motive and consequence.
Of course justification can cancel out any of that weight. Humans are complicated, mechanical problems are so much easier to deal with.
Follow your conscience, if it does no one any harm, then what harm is it.
Contributor
Hi Carl,
You can talk to me anytime.
I think that a few of the engineers around here have lost their way, become slaves to the process, and forgotten that the sole reason for its existence is to to find solutions.
The process is but a tool, one of the many available to us.
The solution is the goal.
Contributor
Keep in mind that there are a multitude of solutions to a problem and the optimum solution entails cost, time, performance, regulatory, safety and other constraints and or requirements. An elegant solution is not always the best solution. Engineering involves dealing with all of these requirements and constraints. It seems that someine has some sort of bone to pick against engineers and this clouds their viewpoint. As a result they keep trying to present themself as capable as an engineer but lacking the prerequisite training.
Contributor
When an engineer meets a person who says that they are an engineer, the following two questions are probably going to be asked:
1. What was your specialty? Electrical, Mechanical, Petroleum, etc.?
2. Where did you get your degree?
Mike
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Contributor
Mark H,
I think your woodworking is engineering! and I'm an engineer!
Haha, I sub out the FEA's (Finite Element Analyses). I think of it as: I get paid the big bucks because I can problem solve, not because I can run a software program. A lot of jobs on the market for engineering specifically ask for FEA experience though. So maybe I'm not an engineer after all.
In the end, I think what makes me an engineer is the ability (hopefully) to take knowledge from a bunch of different sources (experience, journals, text books, experts, etc) and produce a solution. That's the engineering part, in my opinion. That solution process requires you to ask the right questions that others would not ask. Proving it out via math is a tool you use to get to the end result (and many times you have a software package). Understanding the theory is the hard part. A person who has had decades of experience building ships can probably tell you why you are having an XYZ problem without software. That decision is coming from lots of thoughts, not just experience. That same person may pass off the calculations to a more junior engineer because the senior already understands the processes, calculations, theories and doesn't really care about the tiny tweaks the 3D software may provide.
Maybe that makes me old school, but I'm with you Mark.
Cheers,
PS: Long into the future, I would like contract. If I'm charging $200 / hr, my answer can't be: "well, let me run the FEA to see what's going on" during an emergency shutdown and the customer is losing a ba-zillion dollars a day. So I think of it as, if you are a good engineer you can make dang good recommendations on what appears to be 'not enough' data. The cheaper engineers are the ones that can't perform during a shutdown due to the need to create a science project. In my industry anyway, I wouldn't pay anyone big contract money during a crisis to just tell me they need to run 5 days of calculations.
IMHO of course.
Last edited by andrew whicker; 02-27-2019 at 6:42 PM.
Contributor
Mike, you have been staring at my degree all week.
My Pedestal base joint was the highpoint of my first twenty years of woodworking.
It, is my degree.
It was proof that I had made the grade, I had learned to learn.
I had surpassed what was written and taught, and passed into a world of possibilities, an unchartered world to explore and find new truths. I had learned to see.
I no longer needed someone to hold my hand, someone to answer my questions, i have the tools to find the answers myself.
The pedestal base joint was designed with one purpose; the pursuit of absolute; to find the perfect proportions within the structure.
It took a lot of understanding of the nature of the material, and predictions of its behavior under the expected stresses.
As it is, it is probably the strongest structural pedestal base joint there is, and it still has room to be tweaked to find perfection.
It is a fundamental structure.
This is not a joint born of the benefits of the industrial revolution. It is not a novelty joint done with routers and jigs or on a CNC.
The joint is done, as it could have been done for a thousand years with traditional tools.
If designing this joint is such a trivial /obvious thing; (and assuming that it wasn't because the rest of the world simply couldn't be bothered...)
What is the probability that I am the only one to have designed it?
I don't need your friendship, i am not looking for entry into the brotherhood, don't want or need any titles.
All i have asked of you;
Is to look, to see without bias, and evaluate honestly. Broaden your horizons.
Forget what you feel about me, and look at what i am pointing out to you, it might be of some value.
Posting Permissions
