×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

We have better tools, but?
11

We have better tools, but?

We have better tools, but?

(OP)
Recent postings give me a great cause for concern about the lack of knowledge of fundamental principals.

One guy writes that he is designing an ROV and wants buoyancy explained.

Another is designing a pump and wants to know how to calculate the moment of inertia and then discloses that he plans to use three bearings - (indeterminat loading and difficult to align).

Yet another was designing a rotating welding manipulator handling loads weighing tens of tonnes, which was eventually red flagged due to the heat that the thread was generating.

In all cases the posters referred to their solidworks designs.  Are we getting blinded by the sophistication of the  software and forgetting that garbage in = garbage out applies with software, or indeed any system.

I only know for certain that the last example was from an unqualified, but perhaps over-enthusiastic kid, but I hope that the other two are drafters with a healthy curiosity.  If so, I hope that they are given sufficient experienced engineering supervision so that they do not waste too much time, design something impractical, dangerous or all of the above.

On the other hand, if the other posters are qualified, it suggests the following.

- Quality of education.  In the examples given, buoyancy is a fundamental of physics that should have been understood in high school.  Machine element design has fundamentals regarding constructability that should have been learnt in college.

- Insufficient supervision or inappropriate tasking.  Are senior engineers too occupied with management to give the younger guys the necessary mentoring, and related to this, are the young guys being asked to undertake roles above their experience.  Similarly, are companies cutting costs by employing graduates only, thus avoiding higher pay rates.  This is a common complaint on this website, and although it is heartening to see the younger guys shouldering the challenge, it is also a concern that they may not realise the exposure of their situation and could easily be thrown to the wolves.

- Inadequate recruiting practices.  Not everybody was good in all subjects in college and you would expect that career paths would reflect particular strengths.  I may be wrong, but I suspect that ptoficiency in CAD seems to be driving a lot of selections. Are the correct skills being overlooked by recruiters who simply see a candidate as a two-for-the-price-of-one find, someone who can draft and do a bit of engineering?
Regards,
Bill

P.S If anybody recognises themselves in the examples, no offence was intended.  The purpose of this post was not to ridicule, but to highlight what appears to be unreasonable expectactions on our junior colleagues or associates.   

RE: We have better tools, but?

I liked your last option for no other reason than that I think this happens all the time; badly drafted recruiting profiles.

Your example is a good one; preference given to candidates proficient in CAD.
Why?
The lack of CAD skills is easiest remedied with suitable training courses.

One company I was at gave preference to recruiting from its competitors. Why? because the recruits were familiar with the product and the market yet these ought to have been the skills the company could most easily impart itself to a new recruit.
What they ended up with were people who were ready to leave their last jobs for some unknown reason and brought the same problems to their new jobs.
If the marine industry was a particular target market then they'd have been better of recruiting someone with solid marine industry skills and knowledge and trained them in the things they didn't know.

Actually, I'm not sure it is a badly drafted recruitment profile I suspect its the total lack of one. They just have a particular vacancy and a standard skills set for the vacancy and recruit the person who most closely matches. It just happens that recruits from competitor have all the right dialogue.

Now I don't suggest this is the problem you are talking about Bill, but it is certainly a problem I've seen too often.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

I see blind reliance on computer programs as a key piece of what you're talking about.  Pipeline models are a good example.  The underlying math is a bit complex and the interactions between adjacent pipe sections can be very complex.  When I ask client's "how did you pick" a pipe size, route, or compressor, too often I hear "that's what I got from the model".  People use pipeline models to extrapolate without ever verifying that the model can adequately represent current conditions (generally called "calibrating" the model).  One kid asked me to review a design (at the insistence of his non-engineer boss) and he got really offended when I asked to see his model.  Good thing I asked because he had connected the pipe wrong and was going to spend close to $2 million looping a line that didn't have a problem.  He was astonished that the model could give him the wrong answer.

When I used to write computer programs (in the 80's) we had a saying "if it's on green-and-white, it's right" meaning that no one questions computer print outs.  The attitude was really common then and it seems to be just a common today.

David

RE: We have better tools, but?

I think blindly accepting computer output is a problem, but I don't think it's possible to get away from it (i.e. there will always be some dopes in every profession....... yes, including engineering).
I don't think, however, that it is indicative of the profession as a whole or the quality of education of engineering.

RE: We have better tools, but?

I don't think that blind faith in some "authority" to whom you can pass the responsibility is in any way new.  What concerns me is that the computer programs have gotten so slick and so capable that people don't feel that they need to personally verify that the program does the arithmetic properly any more.  When I started, input to a program was on punch cards and output was a stack of paper with graphics that were a small step up from cave drawings.  Good engineers scrupulously questioned every result because the interfaces were so crude.  

Today even very experienced engineers are lulled into a sense of security by the pretty interfaces.  I was recently guilty of this myself.  I got a new (to me) pipeline program and was just too busy to evaluate it properly until after the 90 day trial period expired (the software had been on the market for 30 years in both mainframe and PC versions, the one I bought was something like version 14 so all the bugs must have long since been exterminated, right?).  When I did get around to trying to use it I found that it had three show-stopper busts in the arithmetic that made it totally inappropriate for the task I was trying to accomplish.  Luckily I'm enough of a curmudgen to check for reasonableness in the answers.  When I brought the problems up to the programmers (they call themselves "software engineers"), one of them said that he knew about the problems and that I could work around them by "tweaking ..." (some seemingly unrelated parameter).  If you don't know to ask you'd never find the quirks.

Blind faith in some "competent authority", be they a grey haired engineer, a text book, or a computer program is truly a bad way to do engineering, and always has been.

David

RE: We have better tools, but?

The experienced engineers can't possibly oversee the results produced by the enfants driving the zoomy CAD seats.

It's not  because they can't, or don't want to, or are too busy with other stuff.

It's because they're not there.

More than one outfit paid for the expensive software by discharging its most expensive people. (e.g., me)

After all, if the software has "Engineer" in its name, who needs actual engineers?



 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: We have better tools, but?

zdas04:

Point taken.

I work on the solvers behind the pretty interfaces that our customers (you, etc) demand.  The GUIs have to be so simple that idiots can (and do) use them.  What should we do?  Text input files or GUIs?

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

(OP)
Mike,
You've probably noticed it worse with software that does not produce a result per se, but "tests" a configuration, such  as pipe stress analysis programs.  I don't know how many arguments I have had with project managers who maintain that "the budget allow allows one run per line", which assumes very good, experienced and intuitive piping desighers.
As a client rep, I once agonised over a young stress guy trying to reconfigure a relief valve inlet line from a vessel that kept "failing" due to a relatively stiff outlet line.  After four or five runs he proudly showed me his solution - another three or four metres on the inlet line to incorporate an expansion loop!  I told him to increase the vessel nozzle by one size and increase the flexibility downstream where pressure drop is not critical.  It worked.
The stress guy was unaware that he also had pressure drop (or other) considerations when altering pipe routing.

RE: We have better tools, but?

Zdas04 has put a finger on the flaw in all this... some of these programs are written by software "engineers" not engineers.

So one assumes they had competent engineers looking over their shoulders all the time?
Yeah, right.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

I think it is a combination of inadequate tasking and recruitment policies, but it could also be a difference in generational culture.  I know plenty of 20-somethings that will not ask those they work with for assistance, for fear of being labeled as a failure, or incompetent.  For them it is better to ask an anonymous audience for help and look good.  It could also be the curriculum being taught.  I am sure if you compare today's curriculum with that of 10-20yrs ago, you will see a lot of subjects combined with others.  When that happens, things are glazed over and not taught with any depth.

I have seen my fair share of "the computer said it was all right," and I am guilty of it myself.  I've learned from my mistakes and experiences, hopefully so will those that are doing it today.  As for a lack of mentors (e.g. MikeHalloran), I don't know what much can be done about that, except for fighting for those individuals to remain.  It is always a shame to see anyone being forced to leave simply to get the ledgers back into the black.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the be

RE: We have better tools, but?

Hi BillBirch

I agree that to many people now solely rely on the computor for answers without any rough hand calculations to check or estimate that the answer from the computor is correct.
But the more worrying thing from my experience with young graduates is that they have no feel for what they are trying to analyse and even worse some of them don't even understand the very principles that they have been taught in their degree ie:- laws of motion, static equilibrum, basic maths ie one couldn't work out the length of an arc traced out by a lever within a mechanism its unbelievable!
( in fact I think some of the graduates got their degree free with 3 tops off Kelloggs Cornflakes packets!)
The other trend I see is that a lot of them can model very skillfully in 3D but struggle to understand correct dimensioning of components from the point of view of fit and function and mention geometrical tolerancing and they think it is a foregin language. Sadly what now happens at a lot of companies is they employ graduates to do the 3D modelling and retain retired engineers to mark up and correct the 2D drawing so that it can at least be manufactured.
The problem stems from the system getting rid of apprenticeships as I believe that the students don't get sufficient training in draughting, tolerancing etc and then they are thrown into the workplace straight from university and a lot of companies don't have graduate training programmes to help they cover the area's they are weak on.
That said when I see graduates that can't do simple maths that one should have learnt at school maybe the education system as a problem too.

RE: We have better tools, but?

StompingGuy,
The only pipeline program I ever use for design has a DOS file interface and I use KEDIT to build and change files.  The output looks like a 133 character lineprinter output.  It works very well and is the reason I won't be going to Vista.  I've verified the math on dozens of systems before using a model to recommend a system change.  I don't see anything wrong with not spending money on the pretty, idiot resistant interfaces.

But I'm a dinasaur that can't be long for this world.

David

RE: We have better tools, but?

"Stomping"?  One day I'll change my handle to something people can get right winky smile

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

Sorry about that, I've been seeing your handle for yeara and saw a word that i thought I knew.  It has all the letters of "stomping".  What is a "Sompting"?  

I'll not make that mistake again.

David

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
www.muleshoe-eng.com
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

The main difference beteen humans and apes is that we have cooler tools
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

David,

Sompting is a village on the South coast of England, between Worthing and Shoreham-By-Sea.  It's where I live.  Simple really.

I have a good idea for a prank to play involving our village sign though...

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

so Sompting is your Stomping Grounds?
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

It's not cut and dried.  Where I work is certainly guilty of blindly looking at resumes and hiring quantity while letting quality go, but then a summer intern caught a mistake by an experienced engineer before it was implemented - maybe the exception that proves the rule.

RE: We have better tools, but?

I suppose I have to jump to the defense of the younger engineers.  It seems that if you want to find anyone who can double-check a calculation, you have to find a fresh-from-school kid or summer intern, because most of the so-called experienced engineers are only experienced in eating dinner with suppliers and releasing parts.  They prefer to rely on the opinion of "experts" rather than understand the math themselves...  the experts are the few in the org who used and built on their education instead of letting it rot, plus those highly-polished supplier experts and consultants who have an answer for everything.  Even the simulation and analysis guys seem to rely on procedures more than "does this answer smell right."  

Experienced engineers seem to be more likely to believe in alternative medicine, gas-saver gizmos, and get-rich-quick schemes, while a first-year graduate or a business major working in marketing would say "bull*" before the peddler got thru the first sentence.  The more experienced the engineer, the more confidently he'll argue with you that his entirely unfounded beliefs are right.  Heck, a little reading around here will turn up plenty of examples.  

 

RE: We have better tools, but?

I have a shareware dos cogo program that I swear by.  You have to draw your own layout and lable the points by hand.  Then you have to type up the commands one by one in a batch file.  You know what's good about it - one person can prepare the input and someone else can easily check it.  What a concept!  How can you really check geometry that was generated in cad?  You really can't properly, and there is no factor of safety on geometry.
zdas04-Is it not possible to run dos programs on vista?  
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

4
It's getting harder for engineers to stay in engineering.  Seems like we all get pushed into project management (usually with "remote resources").  I've gone to contract work so that I can keep myself in design in spite of my degree.

SolidWorks/COSMOS is probably one of the biggest offenders in the "Anyone can do this" camp.
<http://esoxrepublic.com/blog/2008/06/13/learning-cosmos/>

RE: We have better tools, but?

"Behavioural validation" was my favourite phrase when I used to build computer simulations.  It sounds more professional than "Dicking around with the model until convinced that it smells right".

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

graybeach,
I have heard that most DOS programs will fail to run on Vista, but I haven't checked for myself.  I have checked the security "dongle" web page, and they have a disclaimer that a security device updated for XP will be unlikley to run in Vista.  I haven't found a compelling reason to "upgrade" so I don't know.  I noticed that Dell offers either XP or Vista on new computers so I'm not going to spend the effort to learn Vista.

David

RE: We have better tools, but?

Thanks for the heads up zdas.  I have vista at home, and I hate it.  Hopefully IT will not make me give up XP at work.

RE: We have better tools, but?

I am myself a young engineer (BSME 2005). A few comments:

I was befuddled when the OP stated that buoyancy was a fundamental of physics and should have been learned in high school. I did not study buoyancy in any real sense until fluid dynamics (2nd or 3rd year of college). Even then, it was maybe 1 week of the course.

I agree that sometimes young engineers aren't given enough mentoring or given tasks that are beyond their qualifications. Personally, with about 3 years of experience, I have my own projects. When I am faced with an application or design that I'm not sure of, I either review it extensively with collegues, or take a long time to learn and verify everything to the best of my ability with the resources I have. This has caused some deadline issues, but I refuse to just "wing-it" when improper design could be a major performance or safety issue. I don't know if this is the case with all younger engineers, and could see how pressure for deadlines could cause many to just throw something together that they aren't completely confident of.

I think inadequete recruiting is coupled with the mentoring and training. If a wonderful mentor is available and enough time is given, I think anybody who is willing to learn could fit into just about any job. However, in some cases that may take years of mentoring. Obviously, mentoring alone will not make a new graduate a "senior engineer", as I feel that requires significant experience.

Also, I don't think the issues with blindly relying on software and GIGO (garbage in = garbage out) are solely the cause of the younger engineers. I feel that where I work I have a better visualization of the fundamentals than many (older) engineers I work with. I don't have the same experience level to rely and provide a "gut-instinct." However, I do verify my results. I also have been asked to do FEA analysis, for which I had a single course in my BSME class. Sometimes the model/loading can be quite complex, and I am very cautious when discussing my results. I explain the assumptions I have made and often say things like "I think we should buff this a little, just to be safe" even when the results based on the model do not exceed acceptable levels. However, I find often management is only interested in a pretty picture, and just wants verification of what they want to hear. I will say that they do not overlook safety however, and it is only issues that will affect the longevity of the machine that I have had concerns about.

-- MechEng2005

RE: We have better tools, but?

I think some of the grey beards are out of touch with what it is like when you are just starting a career.  I am a relatively new engineer. (2.5 years work experience)  I am currently at my second job after college due to being laid off (eligble for rehire) from my first job.  I have found that most experienced engineers will not take the time to train or mentor a new grad. At both jobs I was simply placed in front of a work station and expected to be somewhat product from the start.  I have had virtually no training or mentoring since I have started in my career.  Everything I have learned I have taught myself.  In one instance when I was asking an older more experienced engineer questions about a task we were working together on, I was reported to my manager for disturbing other employees.  I can understand that an excessive amount of questions can be distruptive, but one to two per day seems more than reasonable for me.

I also beleive that the state of education in America is partly to blame.  The quality of education at the highschool level is lacking in most schools and there are some problems with the college education system as well.  My take on the issue is that the required amount of knowledge to be an engineer is greater now than it was 50 years ago.  In school we have to learn all the concepts that were required 50 years ago plus learn new concepts and software.  I found that several disciples that previously had an entire course dedicated to them have now been combined with other courses.  IE where I went to school all calculus courses were combined into 2 classes.  Linear algebra and numerical methods were also combines.  Statics and dynamics were combined into one mechanics course.  I was given the choice of taking CFD's or heat transfer.  The semister I took aerodynamics 1 it had just been combined with aero 2 to make room for other required courses.  Does anyone see a pattern here?  I can say from experience that mechanical component design, GD&T, dratting, and complex analysis are simply not taught anymore in college.  All of the course work deals with first priciples and simplistic problems.  I believe that college only gives you the tools to learn things in a real work setting.  I think that some people are expecting college grads to have knowledge that is simply not included in cirrculums anymore.  Personally I would rather ramp up the BS degrees to a 6 year degree and I would scrap the masters programs entirely.

One point that I do agree with the OP on is that too many engineers blindly accept results gained from software.  I was lucky enough to have an instructor that stressed first principles so I beleive that I have an edge on most new grads in that regard.  Usually when using a new program I use test problems to verify that I am using the software correctly.  I build a problem that I can verify by hand independently and increase the complexity of the problem as I learn each aspect of a new software.  This helps you gain confidence in using the new software while keeping you grounded in reality.

 

RE: We have better tools, but?

How many excuses can one person stuff into one post?  No mentoring today?  Sorry, there never has been much mentoring and at the salaries that entry level engineers are getting today I really don't blame companies for trying to get some productive work from them (especially when the norm is to only stay 2-3 years with a first company--something like two jobs in 2.5 years).  Poor high schools?  Both of my sons finished high school in a really economically depressed school system with two years of Calculus and at least one serious science class.  Colleges cramming too much into the engineering curriculum?  I bet you took all of your electives outside of the School of Engineering, if you have to choose between Heat Transfer and Aerodynamics, maybe the one you didn't choose could have been taken instead of Film Appreciation.

My point is that no one but you has any real control over what you learn, where you learn it, or if it "counts" toward some goal.  If you felt your undergraduate education was inadequate, then you should have stayed longer--the requirements are a minimum not a maximum.

When I was going through University 30 years ago, there were a number of technical classes that weren't required but I felt they would add to my knowledge of my subject, so I took them.  A couple of them couldn't be shoehorned into a spot on my graduation requirements so I didn't get graduation credit for them.  When I started working I was given an office that had recently been vacated by a transfer and the expectation that I would get up to speed on the projects that he had left hanging.  If I asked my boss for help I got a strong dose of "stupid kid" along with the "mentoring".

NOTHING FUNDAMENTAL EVER CHANGES.  My first job out of college was managing computer-program development for engineering applications on the mainframe computer.  Nothing in my undergraduate education prepared me for that role, so I learned on the job.  The only difference I see between then and now is that at my 6 month review I could easily have been fired had I not gotten up to speed quickly enough.  Today that outcome would be amazingly unlikely.

David

RE: We have better tools, but?

to zdas04

You obviously didn't read my post carefully.  I find it funny that you immediately assume that I took the "easy" electives.  Maybe some things have changed since you went to college, but a film appreciation class will have absolutely NO credit towards an engineering degree in colleges today.  I was allowed to take 2 electives for my degree, one design elective and one technical elective.  I choose to take CFD's and rocket propulsion.  I hardly think I took the easy way out.  I also think that you are out of touch with the concept of inflation.  Most people I graduated with started at around 40k annually.  This is not a very large sum, when a person could make the same or more managing a fast food restraunt, working in a factory, or working as a public servant with absolutely no college education.  Some of the jobs I listed do not even require a highschool education in some cases.  What I was trying to state, but when completely over your head, was that hiring mangaers and "old timers' can't expect a new grad to know stuff that is simply not taught in college anymore.  You stated that first principles do not change.  I agree with you there.  If you read more carefully you would see that I said first principles are one of the few things that is still taught in college.  As for taking extra courses beyond what is required, most colleges wont let you do that anymore.  Incidently, most colleges wont let you dual degree anymore.  In this case a student is left with the choice of auditing the course (often for X3 the regular price) or buying a book and teaching themselves.  I opted to teach myself the material rather than paying the college more money.  I do not see any problem with that.  Also you can not blame new grads for not staying in jobs for 2-3 years when virtually all aerospace companies lay off employess several times in a year.  I was laid off from my first job.  I am eligble for rehire.  I was contacted about 5 months after leaving the first job about coming back to work.  Lay offs are common occurance now.  I'm sorry but things have changed in the 30 YEARS since you have been in school.

RE: We have better tools, but?

BTW if you read the post more carefully I was given the choice between heat transfew and CFS's. ( there were other choices, but those two courses is what I narrowed my decision to)  Engineering degrees today require both aero 1 and 2.  What I was saying is that both of those courses are condensed into one course 3 days per week for one semester.  How many courses did you take to learn incompressible and compressible flow?  Was it one course 50 mins a day, 3 times a week for only one semester?  I would wager that it was not.

RE: We have better tools, but?

Very interesting thread.

To Reply to Bills three proposals:

 - Quality of education.

Someone was seriously asking about buoyancy? This sounds more like laziness or not knowing how to research if they were asking a simple question. I just googled buoyancy and there is enough information to solve simple problems. I thought I got a good education for what it was. I would say a US BS is a just the tip of the ice burg/introduction/getting your feet wet. If a person feels its not enough to start their career, there are many avenues to get more education.  Although fair engineering judgment is not really tough in Uni

- Insufficient supervision or inappropriate tasking.

Of the three places I have worked, I would say it is very hard to say.  I can say that supervisors are not always where one can learn fair engineering judgment, however, I have meet some people (engineer or not) that are very willing to show young engineers the way and assign appropriate projects.  Additionally I have been thrown in the deep end -for which i blame my one gray hair pipe- and I would consider it an organizational issues. My time with Corporate America showed that some problems run from the board of directors all the way down because cutting cost is more important then moral or the future. (glad I quit)

- Inadequate recruiting practices.

The perception that a job interview is only to judge to candidate may also be a problem. Something I did pic up from the Forum in one manor or the other, is to also be very judging of the company you wish to work for. Asking good questions and getting as much out of the interview.  Most young engineers dont learn or even know what to look for in a new job during an interview.  There are tons of Drafter (or other non-eng) jobs, advertised as engineering jobs. As a result they (we) accept a job blindly, get in a bad situation for a young engineer. The young engineer may want to be an engineer but the job is not set up that way, and they are stuck drafting or doing sales.

I could list 100 examples. but the point being, its a ruff lesson to learn for young engineers that will never change...but the true engineers will find their way to the top or right place... the rest will get stuck as drafters or hopefully run across someone-like many of the people in the forum- that will help them (or kick them) the right way.


Best Wishes
J
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

The best tools in the world, wielded poorly, will still yield junk.

RE: We have better tools, but?

Aces will still be aces; putzes will still be putzes.  Tools won't change that.

RE: We have better tools, but?

I have read a great number of articles on this type of thing in the structural magazines and therefore know that it is a widespread issue.

The fingers are often pointed at the graduates and their education but I think a large portion of the blame could lie in the industry.

In previous years before the widespread use of computers drawings and calculations were done by hand. The projects therefore took a lot longer, but also you would not let a fresh graduate loose on a full set of calculations without breaking them in on smaller sections first. Thus not only did the employer have to think more on training their graduates but the graduate also had more time to think through the first couple of jobs.

These days everyone expects instant response they expect graduates to be able to use the latest set of analysis programs and to effectively hit the ground running. Engineering firms are some of the poorest trainers around but yet we still expect graduates to perform a very technical job without this vital mentoring.

RE: We have better tools, but?

I agree with jrhagen that the fact that the engineering cirriculum is inadequete in most cases for a new grad to "hit the ground running." As with jrhagen, where I got my BSME the electives were very few and quite specific, with maybe 5 classes to choose from. The only humanities classes taken were those REQUIRED (for the well-rounded portion of a bachelors).

The fact that the cirriculum is not adequete is not necessarily the fault of the university or the student. I have worked in a few places since graduating. The required knowledge and focus at each one has been different. With the vast range of industries that BSMEs (and I presume all disciplines, to different degrees) can work in will determine how much education is required in different subjects. Therefore, I think mentoring and having people available for a new engineer is crucial. There is simply no way university could cover everything that an engineer could need to know to the required depth.

As far as taking extra classes not required for graduation, I agree that it certainly can be beneficial. However, when I graduated I was looking for an engineering job, and wasn't able to be too picky about my first job after graduation. Therefore, taking classes to enhance one specialty would have been useless if I got a job at a company that didn't utilize the specific subject that I took extra classes in.

I agree that young engineers need to be pro-active in learning after graduation. This could include taking formal or informal classes or a mentor or whatever. However, I don't think that spending 10 years in university to take every possible class is reasonable.

My point is that not everything should/could be taught in college, and that mentoring or providing resources for young engineers to learn is very important.

- MechEng2005

RE: We have better tools, but?

I fall into catagory #2.  I'm a 22 year old electromechanical engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering doing a job that several experts should be doing.  And I have to say, I completely agree with every point made in this thread.  I work for an engineering firm that mostly does CAD stuff in the auto industry.  I however dont do any CAD anymore as I hate it.  I work on some experimental venture capital and think I was chosen for this job because I'm a lot cheaper than an expert with a masters and 10+ years experience.  

However, I don't find myself being mentored like I would like, instead I have people with one and sometimes two MS degrees in mechanical engineering asking me how to solve a simple dynamics problem because Catia wont do it for them.  Most of my job consists of performing calculations and modeling of many complex and non-linear systems.  The only thing I have to verify my work is a few bits of data from a couple professors who's data contradicts each other.  First thing I do is go to my notebook or textbooks but most go directly to CAD or some other software.  What it really all comes down to is money I think.  Bean counters thing a new graduate can do the same as an expert because of software like CAD.  

And honestly, I can not say that college prepared me for any of this.  It was my ambition to learn, a solid knowledge of the fundamentals (most from particle physics), and my engineering sense that allows me to do what I do.  In my opinion college isn't good for much other than getting a very expensive piece of paper.
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

Tophinater,

And our fellow engineers are just as bad in their lack of appreciation for the value of experience.

In my industry, you are looked down upon if you are still doing calculations after 15 years. People are encouraged to leave their engineering behind and become managers just at the point that they are actually becoming truly proficient.

  

RE: We have better tools, but?

As to quality of education, college degrees (and below) seem to vary so much over time and space that it's probably difficult for most of us to speak knowledgably about this subject.  We know what we did, we know more or less what a few friends/colleagues did, maybe we researched a few other options when we were looking (or maybe our kids) etc. but few of us probably really have a good grip on this.  "Kids today" may come into it as has been mentioned before.

On the supervision thing, the amount I got varied.  Generally little but my drawings got checked before being released and my designs were verified by the stress guy etc., plus occasionally someone would sit down and show me something or take time answering a question.  I used to try and spend a lot of time with interns/junior staff but these days I'm busier and have trouble finding the time.

The proficiency in CAD thing is stupid.

Most CAD packages can be learnt to a basic level relatively quickly, a week or two course will get you about as far as I perceive you'll learn on most degree courses.  In fact someone smart enough to get a degree should be able to get started from the built in tutorials etc that most CAD systems have.  However, for the employer, not having to pay for this training and/or time spent on that training may be attractive I suppose.

Few places seem to teach the intricacies of drafting to any significant level, such as drawing convention, MBD convention, GD&T or tolerance analysis etc.

Any monkey can be taught to press the right buttons and click the right clicks on the more user friendly CAD systems and come up with a pretty picture but really capturing design intent and communicating that clearly takes a lot more skill, still not necessarily a bachelors degree but more than most CAD users come across seem to have.

The ability to throw a model together that looks pretty can cause all kinds of problems.  Some manager seem to think that if there's a model of it the design's finishes.  Some Engineers/drafters/designers/CAD Monkeys seem to think that if you can model it you can build it & it will work.  Some think that if the model fit together then real parts will fit together, no need to worry about tolerance...  

Use properly CAD is awesome, used to substitute for suitably skilled & experienced Engineers/Designers it's a menace.  To some extent the same with FEA, CFD etc if used wrongly.

I remember that welding rig post, it was kind of scary.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: We have better tools, but?

While I do agree with many of the sentiments above, maybe we should be asking: do new buildings fall down more often than old buildings? do new cars fail more often than old cars?  In other words: do engineers design products that are inferior to older products -- I know its not entirely fair, because we always build on the knowledge of the past, on codes etc. that have had the benefit of history.  The point is: I think modern designs tend to be superior, and the only way to design within the time frame demanded by a competitive marketplace is to use software.

RE: We have better tools, but?

ykee, I see a lot of time wasted because of CAD, I think part of my point is that used properly we could save even more time/money than we do at present and/or design better end products.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: We have better tools, but?

I think today's young engineers are sharp or dull in the same proportion they have always been.  In "Atlas Shrugged," published in 1957, A railroad executive laments the lack of any good engineers to hire.  Really excellent engineers have always been few and far between.  The rest of us have to slog along the best we can.
I totally agree with KENAT about CAD.  Instead of learning CAD in school, students should go back to learning mechanical drawing with scales and triangles.

 

RE: We have better tools, but?

90% of what makes me a CAD wiz is what I learned in high school geometry.

RE: We have better tools, but?

IMO I am OK with colleges not teaching CAD, GD&T or drafting anymore.  All these concepts can be self taught quite easily after college.  I do think that there should be some material in college that deals with manufacturing processes and industry standard practices.  When I first started, I had a designer/drafter position.  I read the pertinent standards and some material on mechanical drafting.  I found the concepts very easy to grasp, what I had a problem with was determining what could actually be manufactured at a acceptable cost.  I really didn't have any kind of grasp of what type of tolerances could be obtained using a given process.  I found myself over tolerancing components for saftey when it wasnt really neccesary.  As you all know, that can turn a $100 part to a $1000 part very quickly.   

RE: We have better tools, but?

graybeach, I'm not sure I'd necessarily propose sending them literally back to the drawing board, however I'd like the emphasis changed from learning a CAD system to learning how to draw/model to best practice/standards and tolerance etc.  Especially given the range of CAD systems (I know AutoCAD is fairly standard in some industries but in others there's a range).

However, I'd still expect this to be a relatively small proportion of a typical Bachelors of Engineering.

Agreed Tick, I use little to nothing of my University Education directly when I'm doing CAD, it's mostly High School, and not necessarily the last 2 years!

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: We have better tools, but?

Summary of an old lunchtime talk at my office:

Tools are just the thin thread we lay down to get through the labyrinth of project problems.  Knowing the physics involved (or dusting off the books) gives us the whole map.  Unfortunately for today's engineers (me included) deadlines often pushes us to rely on cookbooks, spreadsheets and software that thinks for us, then we are thinking 1% less every day, allowing 1% more of our day job to be done by machines and computers, making us 1% more replaceable every day.

Maybe those egyptians were more able to think on all layers of a problem, while making pyramids by just calculating square angles with threads and knots.

RE: We have better tools, but?

Cookbooks, spreadsheets, software?  The ONLY things I've ever nneded to memorize are:

pV=mRT
(pV)^gamma = constant

Almost everything else of use to me can be derived from first principles.

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

An interesting and facinating thread, I must agree with all said to date. As an experienced engineer (20yrs in the real world) I would make the following comments.

As a graduate, you are thrown into the deep end, get over it and remember your fundamentals... SomptinGuy, must use a lot of gas calcs, but there are other first principles to remember.
The education system I believe has moved from focusing on providing basic tools required, there is nothing wrong with rote learning, exams and failing those who don't apply themselves.
When I entered industry, it was at the time industry was down sizing, it was hard to find good mentors. So I went and found them!
To the new graduates, always keep an open mind and be prepared to learn.

To the OP I have also notice the same disturbing trend on this site. Perhaps as a community we, should police these posts and red mark them for closer review by the moderators. Or alternately ignore the obvious bad questions.

Rant over.
 

Mark Hutton


 

RE: We have better tools, but?

Yes, the forums here do bring out some true stinkers.  But since nobody at Eng-Tips is asking for copies of peoples' university transcripts at the door, you've got to realize that some of the questions being asked are not being asked by engineers.

I agree with the previous posters who have said that the geniuses and dolts are still coming out of the schools in the same proportions.

There is definitely a tools believability bias.  People give a digital display more credence than an analog one, whether it's on a watch, a caliper, a calculator, a pressure gauge or a thermometer.  There's something psychological at work there.  The same for a 3D CAD model vs a 2D etc:  there's an inherent believability bias at work.  As our tools get more complex and more powerful, we are left with an even more compelling impression that our models represent reality rather than just an abstraction based on assumptions and calculations.

A well-calibrated garbage detector is essential to being a good engineer- even more essential than in the past.  The best calibrator is experience with the results of your own design.  That's in a nutshell what the young'uns are missing, and what we (more) seasoned engineers must give them via mentoring.  Too few of the young kids have been on the (real) tools, working with their hands, calibrating their commonsense.  That problem HAS gotten worse, and it's parents who are to blame every bit as much as it is employers and schools.

A star to IvyMike for hitting the other nail soundly on the head:  the trouble we old b@stards can tend to have is that we can easily begin to believe our own bullsh*t after a time.  Even the best calibrated bullsh*t detector reads wrong if the person using it is the source!

RE: We have better tools, but?

Engineers.....Spend some time and some of that great experience you claim to have helping young engineers when they need it.  New tools that perform accurately are great.
I haven't forget the eighties when you couldn't buy an enginering job and the old timers kept everything close to the vest as their security blanket from layoffs.
Also, I remember all the meetings when engineers argued in public (look at me, look at me, I am right!) as management and business folks just shook their heads in amazement.

RE: We have better tools, but?

"it was hard to find good mentors. So I went and found them!"

Star for that, HEC.  It is difficult sometimes to suffer the crotchety old ba$%@rds, but if you can get past the bluster, they have wisdom to teach.  For those of us approaching COB age, we have to be ready to suffer the young twits coming up behind, and coach them (and remember the old mule skinner's advice:  step 1, whack it in the head with a 2x4, then you've got its attention).

RE: We have better tools, but?

HEC,

   Rather than red flagging, I would prefer to see people answer bad questions as diplomatically as possible.  You may just succeed in keeping a grossly underqualifed designer from attempting difficult, safety related design.  It may be something that can be printed off and presented to the boss.  A red flagged message just disappears into the ether.

   I did not see the bouyancy, or the welding manipulator threads, but I did respond to the one on centrifugal pump mass moment of intertia.  As best as I can recall, I was taught MMoI in the second semester of a Mechanical Engineering Technology course.  A lot of stuff is built upon this base, so my assumption was that the OP has had no engineering training.

   I have encounted people who appear to have little expertise beyond operating CAD software.  I assume most of them took CAD courses.  I suspect that some of them acquired pirate copies of SolidWorks or whatever, and installed them on home computers.  Right now, some of these people are learning to operate FEA.  Watch out!

                           JHG

RE: We have better tools, but?

Agree that pointing out that they may be in over their heads might be better for the public safety than just immediately red flaggin the thread.  No guarantees it'll stop them but one can hope it might sow the seeds of doubt at least sometimes.

Moments of inertia, I was I think 17 & in high school, then again I was masochistic enough to take double Math, Pure & Applied A level.

Drawoh, you're last paragraph is scary accurate from what I've seen.  The worst thing is when these are the people teaching the CAD class.

An important skill that could perhaps be added to engineering programs is 'how to work with crotchety old farts that have forgotten more than you'll probably ever know' or something like this.  Part of this course would be pointing out that they grew up & were educated in a different time & culture, they may not meet all the current standards of PC behavior etc but this doesn't automatically make them A holes.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: We have better tools, but?

"crotchety old farts"!!

These are the people who jumped at the chance of early retirement at the last lay-off period.  They now come back on contract because of their love for the technical aspects of the work.  For us non-farts they are a brilliant resource.  One day I'll be one.

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

Crotchety old fart engineers network:

Crotchety old fart machinists
Crotchety old fart welders
Crotchety old fart scientists
Crotchety old fart salesmen
Crotchety old fart draftsmen and checkers

Last but not least..........

Other crotchety old fart engineers

RE: We have better tools, but?

KENAT,

   I do not think I have been taught CAD by grossly untrained people.  My CosmosM training has been from engineers with graduate degrees.  They know their stuff!

   I am curious about how comforable they are with us non-engineers running FEA?  Are they confident that we are professional enough to refuse work that is beyond our ability?  We are being told such great things about the FEA.  Can they be held responsible if we decide we are qualified to analyze pressure vessels or high, elevated platforms?

                         JHG
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

drawoh,

The problem with software salesmen is generally they believe that their software is infallable. It is not. It is based on engineering theory that makes simplifications (Assumptions) based on observation. The key is knowing the assumptions and when the design or model is getting "close to the edge". FEA is, dare I open the TLA, Finite Element Analysis vis all the basic theory of strength, fluid or other physical phenomenom over small parts of the model. It is very dependant upon how the model is assembled and its boundary conditions. The normal caveat of GIGO. The key then is knowing when it is wrong. This is generally based on experience and if the big numbers add up.

1. If it doesn't look right it probably is not right.
2. The difference between theory and practice is generally greater in practice that in theory!

Cheers

Mark Hutton


 

RE: We have better tools, but?

"An important skill that could perhaps be added to engineering programs is 'how to work with crotchety old farts that have forgotten more than you'll probably ever know' or something like this."

Dunno about the rest of you, but that was part of both BS and MS level junior & senior design courses.  Junior project required us to interface with our shop supervisor, a crusty old German guy (we suspected he was ex-Nazi, but no proof).  Senior design course I've already commented on.

At my first job, several designers of the original F-1 rocket engine (you know, the one that put men on the moon?) were due to be laid off, and were typically patently ignored (as whining naysayers) in most meetings by the middle management layer between me and them.  Some of these guys had stacks of blueprints, binders full of test data, floppies full of codes...  A few of us young punks snuck over to their offices when time allowed, and absorbed, alternatingly, good-natured abuse, long soliloquies about how we had it easy (they used to walk uphill to the test lab, both ways, in blinding snowstorms), and where the good stuff was in those binders, floppies, and blueprints.  We did some neat stuff, combining some of the old codes with some of the new ones, figuring out how to anchor some of the new codes with the old data...  And, on at least one occasion, one certain young punk asked a COF to a meeting where he'd felt out of his depth...and the COF helped that particular design team to save the day by suggesting a test method that allowed them to successfully demonstrate a particular engine for a congresscritter without it blowing up like in all prior tests.

RE: We have better tools, but?

HEC,

   As I noted, we are dealing with graduate engineers, one of whom teaches mechanics of materials at a nearby university.  They know the limitations of FEA.

   Perhaps what they do not know are the limitations of some FEA operators.  A lot of idiots probably shut up when they realize they are talking to an engineer with a masters or doctorate degree, whereas, they don't when they are talking to me.  

   I have been told "We need FEA so that we can do structural analysis."  I have also been told that all mechanical parts are 30% overweight, presumably due to people not having FEA.  Structural or fluid or thermal analysis is a process of operating the right software.  Do they understand the answers?  I do not know.

                 JHG

RE: We have better tools, but?

drawoh, speaking as someone with my bachelors, just having a bachelors doesn't necessarily mean you know it all.  I've had people teaching stuff that upon closer examination they didn't really know/understand/have real life experience of.  I've also had people with advanced degrees asking for FEA and not mentioning hand calcs when they probably would have been faster & easier to do.  Although if your guy teaches at a uni then there's presumably some hope.

One point on FEA, it's usually a good idea to validate your FEA with at least a rough 'order of magnitude', I know some 'designers' who could probably do this, at least for simple cases (perhaps better than I), but I know plenty that couldn't so I have concerns in that area as you originally flagged.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: We have better tools, but?

SomptingGuy, congratulations if you are able to survive with only those equations.
I have no such luck. I wish a SRAM could smoke when a pointer address overflows, or a diode with too much overshoot could scream in pain so I could get the failure at once.

I must be jealous: using far more maths than you every day sad


 

RE: We have better tools, but?

The up side of not being able to see electrons is that you don't get a lot of unsolicited pseudo- technical help from management.

 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: We have better tools, but?

"I am curious about how comforable they are with us non-engineers running FEA?  Are they confident that we are professional enough to refuse work that is beyond our ability?  We are being told such great things about the FEA.  Can they be held responsible if we decide we are qualified to analyze pressure vessels or high, elevated platforms?"

I think that the trend of bundling crippled FEA programs with solid modelling programs will last until the first significant court case.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: We have better tools, but?

GonzaloEE,  I am often guilty of giving terse replies that can be misunderstood (and posting jokes that others then feel the need to explain).

What I meant to say is that there is generally no need to memorize formulae or equations if you actually understand the physics behind them.  Indeed, memorizing formulae is generally a bad thing.  By extension, memorizing them by way of spreadsheets is worse still.

If you already haven't, read Feynman's "Surely you're joking..." book.  There is an excellent description in it of (I think Brazillian) engineering education where the students were memorizing everything and understand nothing.  It also encapsulates another theme on this thread, teaching and why professors teach.
 

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

No problem, thanks for explaining it to some of us not checking the site too often.
I agree 100% on that of memorizing.  Though I don't know of Brazilian engineering, 'passive' education is a common issue in that region, along with language barriers and low education budgets.  Maybe European educational style -more theoretical, has something to do with that too.
No surprise engineers with a global-industry-level education end up hired by US companies for R&D and 'real' engineering projects, while most locals work on sales/management.
Well, education across continents is a interesting subject I'll leave for another thread.  

I remember a college teacher joking about french theory-friendly engineering, saying 'they manage to build cars by working out formulae for n-wheels vehicles, then making n=4'

RE: We have better tools, but?

(especially managers...) repeat after me...
"CAD is not engineering"
"CAD is not engineering"
"CAD is not engineering!!!!!!!!!!!!"

RE: We have better tools, but?

Tick,
I think you have issues.

David

RE: We have better tools, but?

Analysis software should NEVER be looked at as a substitute for product testing.  Analysis is meant to flush out design flaws early, eliminating the costly and time consuming trial and error of prototyping cycles.  

Good FEA results should give the engineer/designer the confidence that his design will pass reliability testing the first time around.

 

RE: We have better tools, but?

don't say never... I doubt many people test flywheels these days.
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

Yup, I do a whole bunch of safety related tests on the computer that are too dangerous to perform in real life.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: We have better tools, but?

I do agree with spongebob.  Analysis is really the crystal ball of engineering.  It is a great way to see in the future, but your destiny is still uncertain till it happens.  FEA is all math that will predict what will happen.  There are to may other dynamics that that the software does not take into consideration, also, the model is only good as its creator's assumptions.  The proof in the pudding is in the test both thermally and dynamically.  I will always do a prequalification test to chase the bugs out and then send it off for the real qualification test.  You'll get more sleep this way.

Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."  

RE: We have better tools, but?

There is more to CAE than FEA.

A simulation that gives you insight into why something behaves the way it does is a valuable thing in its own right.  As well as "flushing out design flaws", a good simulation tool will allow you to experiment with no end of alternative solutions to a problem.
 

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

Ah, you brought up one of my most annoying issues.

Your question, "..are we getting blinded by the sophistication of software...?"

Yes. The answer is Yes. It has nothing to do with old engineers or young engineers. It's the blind respect for software.
 
I have a present example right now. I'm working on an electronic product for a military application. One engineer took a circuit from a published paper (which was intended for a different application). He has spent the last 2 months performing PSpice analysis and other simulations. Neither his actual hardware nor the Pspice output meet the customers specifications. No inventive new design has been performed to make the product work, just analyzing-to-death a circuit which does not work.

What's our firm going to do when the customer asks, "Where is our box?" Are we going to say, "Uh, it doesn't work, but look at the 25lb stack of paperwork and analysis!!"

RE: We have better tools, but?

how does that reflect blind respect for the software?
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

Ivy, I'm using the term a little differently than the other posters. The "respect for software" I'm refering to is that somehow these guys think that they're supposed to keep operating a software program nonstop instead of analyzing and solving an engineering problem. I also see similar respect for software in the FEA guys here (one of which is not degreed). Just the fact that a bunch of time was spent producing a huge report with the word "FEA" written on the coverpage does not mean that a proper failure modes and effects analysis was performed.
  

RE: We have better tools, but?

Well, you certainly can do an FEA without doing an FMEA.  

Sounds like a strange place to work.  

I've run across a few CFD analysts who were little better than a "wet interface" for the software - without an engineer to guide them, they'd just make multi-colored pictures all day.

 

RE: We have better tools, but?

When you have to field support questions for a simulation tool you develop, it is stunning and scary just how little some of the users/questioners actually know and understand.  Often a question will come in that makes my heart sink.  For example, a CFD researcher (his choice of title) asked us last week what we meant by "total temperature".


  

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?


Many blame education which has been producing knowledgeable engineers inconsistently for over a century.
 
Many blame the lack of mentoring which has also happens to be an inconsistent source of quality knowledge.
 
Many blame new fangled computer programs that are being used by inconsistent knowledgeable engineers.

Few engineers talk about hands on field experience.

Few engineers actually have hands on field experience.

Few engineers actually talk about the lack of hands on field experience engineers have today.

How can anyone be a true engineering expert in something they have never empirically experienced?
 

RE: We have better tools, but?

drebelx, what do you mean by hands on experience.

Do you mean something like a structured apprenticeship or just having worked on the shop floor/site whatever as a labourer?

I've seen people of varying quality come from both, the apprenticeships, especially those who'd done the apprenticeship a few decades back, were the better of the two though.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: We have better tools, but?

"90% of what makes me a CAD wiz is what I learned in high school geometry."

Now that's truth right there.  Except kids don't even get that today, they get thrown right into 3D modeling with no real appreciation for reading/creating blueprints.

CAD's a great "tool" to graphically express how something should be manufactured and assembled.  No it doesn't replace engineering, but the two in tandem, and in the right hands, can create some pretty amazing things in a short period of time.

You still need calculations for sizing items for the application, and tools like FEA to prove and improve the base design.

I really think that colleges are a prep for the field, and if anything prepare enough to know where to look and how to solve problems.  My opinion is that job specific traits and areas of expertise be learned in the field under guidance of more experienced engineers.  Otherwise you have theory with no application and you'll never truly remember or grasp fully what you're learning.

I like to tell anyone I'm interviewing for that I may not know everything, but I'm a fast learner, adaptable and most importantly know how to use my tools effectively.  Otherwise I'm selling myself as something I'm not, and at the same time it opens the door to a broader future experience.  

Just my $.02

James Spisich
Design Engineer, CSWP

RE: We have better tools, but?

@KENAT

Exactly. Apprenticeship is part of what I'm talking about.

There is also a problem at the family level where children are expected to learn everything they need to know from mandatory schools and other structured programs. There is very little room for children to explore on their own the physical realities that make up our world.

Childhood curiosity and the excitement from it is suppressed. Large numbers of children are designed to be given tasks, apply a solution based on concepts generated in the past and repeat.  

RE: We have better tools, but?

I'm a new guy as well. Started working three months ago (Mechanical). My school sucked, the teachers were useless and everything I know I learned my self.

I didn't do any FEA in school and one of my first assignments at work was do do a FEA. Instead of doing that, I just did what I knew..Made assumptions, drew a free body diagram, added forces and did simple calculations. Luckily, it turned out to be more than good enough.

This just goes to show how much everyone these days relies on computers. I only have a Bachelors degree in mechanical engineering, and I'm a firm believer that without good knowledge of solid mechanics, one should not do computer simulations on solid mechanics... I do not have this knowledge, and until I do, I refuse to do any such analysis.

RE: We have better tools, but?

A CAD program is like a motorcycle.  A kid jumps on it and wants to drive its wheels off and probably get himself killed.  On the other hand, a seasoned rider or even a racing professional can do truly amazing things with that motorcycle, pushing himself and the bike to the outermost limits.

So what I am saying is, yes, CAD programs are sometimes far too ambitious to the inexperienced user.  But to other capable engineers, wow, they can be liberating.
 

Kyle Chandler
www.chiefengineering.net

 

RE: We have better tools, but?

You can not disregard FEA.  Every tool has its purpose.  Also, even hand calculations can go awry.  I use FEA in two ways.  One to correlate my hand calculations if there is no test data available and two to show to management or other non-Mechanical Engineers the problems or solutions because not everybody speaks Mechanical Engineering.  Yes I agree that if a user (or not even an Engineer) does a FEA exercise with out hand calculations, you're setting yourself up for failure, however, coupled with hand calculations, most likely you will be going down the right path.  Now for pretty pictures for management and non engineers, I think this is where it comes into play.  These are the people who hold the keys to the gate (gate reviews).  If you show them equations and theory, they will get confused and lock you out.  If they see pretty pictures that show them there is no problem, they will open the gate with fanfare.

Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."  

RE: We have better tools, but?

Try explaining stress concentration to a manager without pretty pictures.

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

Oh to add, if stress is not over yeild, try not to show red in your pretty pictures, even thoe red is still below yeild, managment and non-engineers see this as failure.  Try to show as green, because green is the color of "go and good".

Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."  

RE: We have better tools, but?

The important thing is make sure the pretty picture is only convincing the 'customer' and not the only thing the person doing the analysis is relying on.

That said there are some situations that are very difficult to do by hand, here FEA may be the only way to attempt analysis prior to testing real hardware.

At previous employer in Aerospace/Defence, the important thing was that things had been validated in two ways, traditionally hand calcs and then tests of hardware in the most critical areas.  We were just moving to using FEA to validate the hand calcs for some tasks.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies recently, or taken a look at posting policies: http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: We have better tools, but?

I had a much longer post, but decided my angry rant should not be posted.  

1)    My college did not teach me any of the fundamentals needed for Power Engineering.  Apparently most colleges in the North East US do not.  
2)    My job has almost no engineering required in it.  I have never once, nor has 99% of the Electrical department here ever needed to do a Calc problem.
3)    The majority of my job could have been done after taking a basic power course.  The challenge is the administrative BS and changing job requirements.  
4)    CAD is king in this industry.  We are critiqued more for the drawing not looking "pretty" then technical content.  We have sent packages for review which have received zero technical comments (they missed our mistakes as well).  We are encouraged to get something down on paper quickly, and base or thinking off that, instead of thinking about it before drawing it.    
5)    The majority of my industry lives by "live and learn" philosophy.  Most of what I learn isn't even engineering related, but instead about the history behind something, or information specific to a certain part.  I just need to know that X device does this, and I have to wire it like this.  There is rarely time or motivation to take it further then that.  
6)    Everything I do is decided by the NEC.  If I cant back it up with the NEC, it doesn't count.  Doesn't matter how logical the argument is, it all comes down to "What does the NEC say?"  (it is not required for Power Utilities, I understand I have to follow it for other jobs).
7)    Far too much politics and "social dancing" involved in Engineering.
7)    Jobs are often rushed and we have no clear procedure for checking drawings.

RE: We have better tools, but?

And don't forget #7: the job is repetitive.

- Steve

RE: We have better tools, but?

"We are critiqued more for the drawing not looking "pretty" then technical content."

Ugh! My ex-checker moved to the east coast. You must have her as your checker? lol

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion

RE: We have better tools, but?

@SomptingGuy - I have octophobia.  There can never be too many 7's

Here is another #7  for you:
Management who wants you to do a certain task (be it CAD or computation via a program) but dont understand/know how to use that program and that what they are asking is impossible.   

RE: We have better tools, but?

I have about 6 years of refinery process engineering experience.  Some of the previous post range from the funny side to being just scary.  It's interesting to read peoples experience from the project design/CAD stand point.  Most of my bread and butter is made from improving designs in the field.  Often the improvments come from run of the mill type items like identifying inefficient areas. Big improvments are often made by redesigning or retrofitting equipment that was not designed well in the first place.  I have assumed until now that these design flaws were mostly just errors that were missed during the design.  After reading all of these posts I am starting to wonder if it was just from a poor fundamental understanding of the process.  As far as modeling/ fancy GUI's go I have done enough process modeling work to know that it takes time to verify that you aren't putting garbage in or getting garbage out.  Just as recently as one week ago I got into a heated "discussion" with a coworker of mine of why his solution to a problem of "just put it into HYSYS"  was wrong on several levels.  I think he hit a nerve of mine because of my previous experiance with engineers fresh out of school who want to save the world with computer simulations without understanding why they are getting the answers they are getting.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources