Way of designing
Way of designing
(OP)
Hi
How would you define you way of designing?
Do you model what you have ready in your mind?
Or you think in 3D? Meaning that you depend fully on modelling and visualizing and simulating possibilities of your CAD?
BR
Linqur
How would you define you way of designing?
Do you model what you have ready in your mind?
Or you think in 3D? Meaning that you depend fully on modelling and visualizing and simulating possibilities of your CAD?
BR
Linqur





RE: Way of designing
RE: Way of designing
After I have something working, I go back and start to detail that simplified model. A simple level arm will most likely not stay so simple, especially after you take into consideration manufacturing, reliability and assembly.
"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."
RE: Way of designing
I have no background of 2D to teach "mind design".
Linqur
RE: Way of designing
I do not see how mechanical design can be done competently by someone who does not have good spatial perception skills. In other words, they must be able to visualize their concept, and anything shown by a drawing, as a 3D object.
The 3D CAD is a tool that helps you will all of this.
JHG
RE: Way of designing
RE: Way of designing
I'll give you my belief (and thats all it is, no facts or medical data to back it up). Some people can roll their tongues and some can't, some people dream in colour others in black & white, some people can visualize an object in 3D and some can't.
Before solid modelling came along you didn't have a choice, if you couldn't visualize the part in 3D and be able to rotate it and explode it in your mind, you would have difficulty trying to create a machine drawing. I'm guessing that 20 years ago if you couldn't see in 3D you probably switched from design to sales or management or some other field.
Now, with 3D modelling, you aren't required to create the part in your mind, you create it on the screen. If you can't see in 3D are you less able as a designer? I don't know, like optech I've always been visualize in 3D so I really can't imagine being able to design a complex part without that ability.
RE: Way of designing
If the designer's is spatially challenged, but their first idea is a good one, they will succeed with 3D design. The fun starts when the idea is not good, or the idea almost works but needs a little understanding.
Consider this. The only official way to communicate your design to a manufacturer is to create 2D drawings with dimensions and tolerances. If I don't understand the conversion between a 3D object and a 2D representation of it, I will not be able to commicate it to anyone else.
JHG
RE: Way of designing
I always try to design in my head in 3D, and hand draft it using lots of paper and isometries. We do use cad 2 or 3d but just for sending manufacturing details to the workshop or the client.
I think that it would be challenging for someone without a clear 3d imagination to design a complicated device. Having said that, there have been times that we felt we must build a cartonboard or even a steel model to understand a very complicated device. The most challenging part has been to comunicate efectively and fast enough the way that things work, since we use a collaborative design framework.
hth sancat
RE: Way of designing
You get so full of what you are building and you know all the principal parts so well that solutions to problems reveal themselves when you are relaxed and not stressed about how to solve the problem.
The actual 2D or 3D drawing is tedious and comes only when the parts have been "roughed out" in my mind.
I also find that as larger projects are built in stages or phases, that it is helpful to hack out the drawing on the computer and look at the completed section of the project in 3D so my mind can relax the details up to that point. This allows me to concentrate on "new" phases in finer detail without having to "remember" the details of previously solved issues.
I sure ain't no Einstein - hell, I don't even know if I spelled his name right - but I read some of his published memoirs and I remember him stating that when he was contemplating light travel and time as compared to light and so on, that he would picture himself as riding on a beam of light traveling through space.
RE: Way of designing
Having spent a number of years as a journeyman toolmaker before I drew my first line on paper and therefore having learned to convert 2d dwgs into 3d reality I can say with confidence that 3d visualization is an excellent aid to design.
That being said however there are a number of other important criteria that are equally important to good design.
Such as:
1. End use. No matter how pretty, cheap or fast it gets built, it must work.
2. Fabrication. Know your fabricator and the tools and methods they use. Tailor your details to their methods to avoid operations that your fabricator doesn't normally perform.
3. Maintainability. Ensure that wearable parts and parts that need adjustment are readily accessible.
4. Locate, locate, locate. The purpose of putting it on paper is so that it can only be interpreted in the way it was intended.
5. Cad really IS just a tool, albeit a very good one. The cardinal rule still applies - garbage in, garbage out. I can't draw much faster with cad than a good manual drafter can on paper but I can erase a lot faster. I can try a lot more ideas faster on cad but a good manual drafter has learned to think.
I could write more but I'm starting to bore myself, the rest of you probably stopped reading awhile back.
RE: Way of designing
I work in an office with nine designers in it. We design complex electromechanical equipment. What you notice is the way people work is very different depending on their abilities:
The technical director has been doing this stuff for aeons. He hardly needs to sketch a thing before the final design because he's got such a library of solutions and experience. He could design a tricky bit of kit with a few lines in 2D CAD and fill in the details as the final manufacturing drawings are created.
Some of the senior designers put a few key lines down and sit staring at them. Visualizing all the problems, assembly, functionality etc. Every now and then , they'll detail up a little section and move on. They've got the whole machine in their head but the lines they draw help them keep it accurate.
We also have a less experienced designer who diligently models everything in 3D CAD. He loves to get those little models just right. It always looks really pretty but close inspection often reveals a lack of understanding or attention to detail and his stuff hardly ever works first time.
RE: Way of designing
Can you all bring back some memories from your starting stages as designers? How long did it take to start seeing mechanisms clearly in head?
BR
Linqur
RE: Way of designing
You have discovered a very key fact about the way our minds work. That is, your mind works best when not stressed.
I have read a book by an author named Alfonso Lopez, titled "Double Your Capacity In Two Hours". He can be reached at alfonsoafrica@yahoo.com. It is very interesting reading.
Lew
RE: Way of designing
Generally I talk to different people, the guys who are on assembly, sales and other colleagues and ask them what they think, sometimes the result means starting from scratch. This is sometimes necessary and with 3D cad very easy, as you can keep the bits that do work and modify or redesign the others quickly.
There is of course the old 'Keep It Simple' rule as the easier it is to make and put together the fewer problems you will have ..... allegedly.
RE: Way of designing
"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."
RE: Way of designing
The answer is pretty much as MadMango says. Some people are good designers, a few are great designers and some are just little more than ordinary bods who happen to know how to operate a CAD system and remember a few bits and bobs from university.
I see mechanical engineering (Design is a BIG field) as creative problem solving in 3D with applied physics / manufacturing / materials / ergonomic / service / safety considerations taken into account. If you can do it with flair, imagination and innovation you get my vote.
Some people are fairly low on the learning curve but they'll get there. Other people just don't get it.
RE: Way of designing
For some reason I seem to understand what atoms and molecules want to do or are willing to do in a chemical processes but mechanical stuff is pretty much like a monkey with a jig saw puzzle.
A couple points I live by. 1. Check with the customer and / or intended user early and often. Even if you know their suggestion is wrong. Cobble it together and show them. (Besides sometimes the people on the plant floor are smarter than engineers.) My way isn’t very flashy but the equipment works better than promised and that ain’t bad.
2. Do not have anything made until you exhaust all possible resources for purchasing a part. It is a lot of fun to sit down at a blank screen and design whatever you want. However it is generally much faster and less expensive to use existing parts.
Tom
P.S. get a copy of Five Hundred and Seven Mechanical Movements, Henry Brown, Astragal Press.
RE: Way of designing
Industrial Engineering / Design versus Mechanical Engineering / Design... That is the question!
RE: Way of designing
Speaking for my experience, very seldom I have needed to use a 3D CAD; we have used it mostly for FEM design or for marketing purposes (to sell the solution to a client). Most times, when we actually make 3D CAD is made because our drafter knows how to do it, he finds it "cute", and he says that it is the only way to work details and to be sure nothing interferes (perhaps he is right about that).
However I disagree with you that spatial understanding is not needed for a physical model design. I think that without a spatial understanding of how things move, and what goes where, it is difficult to design a mechanical solution. It is most possible that you do it intuitively and take it as a normal capability. I have seen guys who just don’t get it, and while they might have a carton, they have lost their time at university. I also have seen people without studies, but with talent, and they make working designs. Their designs might not be so efficient in material use or conception, but they do what they are designed for.
sancat
RE: Way of designing
arnie333
RE: Way of designing
To answer your last posting LinqurI would say that yes a good designer can be developed over time. The attitude and ability of the individual will determine the speed of progress.
On the other hand some people will never exhibit good problem solving skills and can never be more than a detailer. There is a place for them also.
Only you can determine your subordinates level of capability and potential.
I've always given a new designer at least three months to prove potential.
RE: Way of designing
I believe the best tool designers are the people that FIRST work on the floor..Journeymen tool makers know what works...A good tool maker must be able to "visualize" ...He has to be able to see the end result in his mind...He has to know the right steps to take.
The class A toolmaker that then learns CAD will be tough to beat as a designer..
This toolmaker will have some formal education also to learn engineering standards.
The old saying that experience is the best teacher applies here.
The best cad program in the world CANNOT design any better than the guy or gal pushing the buttons..
RE: Way of designing
This toolmaker will have some formal education also to learn engineering standards.
The old saying that experience is the best teacher applies here.
The best cad program in the world CANNOT design any better than the guy or gal pushing the buttons.”
This is not entirely truth. You are talking about a carpenter who knows what but doe not – WHY? A small step aside – and – I do not know! Their main argument – I was told to do like that – when you ask – why – silence!
Experience is great but it cannot be a substitute for knowledge. Unfortunately, this happens each and everyday. It has been working for years but now when real knowledge on tool design is needed these old monsters with shallow knowledge but with hundreds years of experience – Valenite, Kennametal etc. fail. Companies from oversee with better knowledge take greater and greater sector of the market.
To design a good cutting tool, one needs to know what cutting is all about, what has to be done to cut something faster, easier, more efficient. Then using this basis – design the proper cutting tool. There is no other experience-based way – lets try and see. You will try until Japanese Christmas.
Viktor
http://viktorastakhov.tripod.com
RE: Way of designing
Quote:
......Experience is great but it cannot be a substitute for knowledge......
Experience IS knowledge.
It is clear you have little respect for the seasoned pro...
RE: Way of designing
When I started designing I drew in pencil, then I used 2D CAD, then I used 3D CAD. Tomorrow I could draw in pencil again and it would be like a carpenter being forced to use a blunt tool. Yes, the results might come slower and the finish and presentation might not be quite as good but the design element, which is what we are talking about, is the same.
Tomwalz says he gets his ideas from a book, great, but that isn't design. I can get chemistry from a book but it doesn't make me a chemical engineer.
Design implies novelty, creation and problem solving. I spoke to the Jordan race team a while back. They said they were all on ProE but their gearbox designer just couldn't think in 3D so he designed the gearboxes all in 2D then someone else translated it into CAD. He was still the best gearbox designer, he just thought in 2D. Before I knew how to drive a 3D CAD system I was still an experienced designer. I didn't get better all of a sudden, I just gained clash detection and a few other nifty tools.
RE: Way of designing
Facinating subject! I do not remember a time when I did NOT think in 3-D but I certainly have learned more over the years. The CAD and Solid-Modeling tools have been very helpful but have sometimes been a hinderance.
I work with a fellow who cannot visualize a simple part until it is made. Even with a 3-D sketch he struggles. He has no sense of depth. Even with 3-D solids tumbling on the screen he cannot understand it until it is made.
I have often wondered why this is. I think it is like those magic pictures where if you look at it just right you can see a 3-D object in them. Once you have seen the objects, they get easier to see the next time. I have never had trouble seeing the 3-D items in those magic pictures but I know several people who think it's a joke. They cannot (will not?) see the 3-D item. Is it a learned ability or are some folk's minds or eyes not built the same way that would allow them to visualize 3-D? I don't know.
The fellow I wrote of earlier has an uncanny ability to come up with complicated mechanisms in his mind but he cannot even sketch the first line of it. He tells me what he wants and I make it (I'm sure with my own perception of what he is asking for). Only after I have put 75% of it in metal does he begin to understand it - even though it was his own idea. I have asked him if he sees in his mind his design in 3-D or even 2-D and he says no. I believe him because with a quick 2-D or 3-d sketch he cannot tell me if that is what he was thinking of or not. Only after it has been made. You can see that this could be a costly and time-consuming method!
I thought perhaps that it was my ability to communicate through drawings but others have quickly understood my drawings. This fellow cannot "see" anyone else's work either until "cut in stone", YET he has such thoughtful and workable concepts! Explain that!
I'm very glad to see that several of you actually spend the time to talk with the folks in the shop who will actually make your parts. Almost every group I have worked with has had at least one designer or engineer that thought he was better or smarter than the shop guys (and gals) and let his ego get in the way of good design. The guys on the line and in marketing and sales can all contribute to a job well done. Don't let their experience go to waste! They will appreciate you allowing them a voice and will work hard to make sure your design works. I worked with a guy who was such a jerk to the shop guys that they eventually caught him out in the shop one day and broke his nose! He once made a mistake on a shop drawing but because he was such a jerk the shop went ahead and made the parts to spec and we ended up scrapping several hundred parts. That one hurt everyone! If the company prospers you may not benefit but if the company is hurt I can garantee you will suffer as a result. I always keep a good rapport with the shop so if I make a silly mistake they will come in and ask me about it so I can correct it before any metal is cut.
Sorry for such a long "comment". Massey you're a riot!
RE: Way of designing
I think that our value as technical people is when we do things that are counter-intuitive, and there I agree with Viktor. Theoretical knowledge, always tempered by listening to others opinions and experiences, is the source of well thought designs. I think that that is the difference between know-how (floor plant knowledge) to know-why (studies knowledge). I hope this does not sound arrogant.
And back to 3D-2D, the biggest problem I find in 3D CAD is that it is time consuming. It is a tool like a spreadsheet, which can help in some occasions but might be just wasted time (and inutile added cost) in other applications. While it is possible to depend on your 3D software, that might mean that you are not a good hand drafter, but you still have the spatial comprehension of the problem.
I think the difficulty to think spatially is somehow linked to our ability to find our way around a city with a map, and that might be linked on how many hours you spent when child playing with Legos... ...And therefore, while I know that this will raise controversy, I think it is harder for gals, than for guys to think in 3D. That might be one of the factors why it is not as common as we would like to find ladies in our working fields.
sancat
RE: Way of designing
Anyway, pertaining to design - I have NOT had the experience of seeing women having difficulty thinking in 3-D more than men. One woman I worked with comes to mind. She was amazing at her ability to design in her mind before ever putting pen to paper or stylus to digitizer. I think our perception of people's abilities probably is limited by our own personal experience with others. I've worked with good and bad of both genders. I'm not cracking on you sancat, just giving my experiences and observations.
RE: Way of designing
After 3 years, we both went our separate ways and I went to work at a small mold shop where I worked on the floor building molds ALSO designing some of the time. In small shops, sometimes we have to wear more than one hat.
There was one moldmaker in particular that comes to mind in regards to "visualizing". This man could look at a complex part print for a short time and "see" every problem area. He could, of course, visualize every part of the mold he was making and caught engineering mistakes BEFORE they cost us money.
On the other hand, we had one full time designer that had a hard time visualizing the steel around the part. He couldn't see the bypass shutoffs among other things.
For the last 5 years I have been designing in CAD, the design tables are used for quoting and checking prints.
My Point:
NO cad program can design a mold....The design comes from your mind! The more you know, the better and faster you can design. PERIOD
RE: Way of designing
Right-handed people or Left-handed people?
RE: Way of designing
“Experience IS knowledge” – not always – every day you see the Sun rising then moves over and then it sets. Your experience says that the Sun is moving. In reality it is vise-versa. Remember Galileo versus the whole world of experienced practitioners? What they did with the guy?
Experience sometimes helps and sometimes obstructs proper understanding what is going on in reality. Therefore real knowledge plus experience are real power.
“It is clear you have little respect for the seasoned pro...” – I would not say so. I like to work with such guys – they understand what I am talking about much easy.
Viktor
http://viktorastakhov.tripod.com
RE: Way of designing
Viktor
http://viktorastakhov.tripod.com
RE: Way of designing
And yes, we do not use drawing boards anymore, we work in 2D cad, but here I would mark a difference between design and draft. While we are 3 designers here, we have 4 drafters. For quoting purposes we design very fast (mostly by hand, on a A3 or A4 paper), the way the thing would work. This is for me the design.
After we get the order we do details, mostly by CAD. Here we work interactively with a drafter. We draw over his printouts, and then when we agree things are clear, he does the fabrication drafts for each part. This way works for us, we manufacture a very broad range of machinery (cant be very specialized, in our market, you do what you are asked, from pumps to laminators, to ventilation systems, to steel structures, but no complex plastic molds so far). Our weakness is that we cant afford get a perfect design, we have to achieve a compromise solution, at expense of price/performance, to gain speed.
And on lefties and righties, I have friends who are lefties, and much to my envy, they are the most gifted hand drawers. Again can’t generalize, but this is my experience.
sancat
RE: Way of designing
Funny though, my mother and sister are extremely artistic and creative. Both being right-handed, neither can draw a straight line free-handed. I, being very analytical minded cannot draw a crooked line very well. I use lots of straight lines and angles and curves but cannot "sketch" very well.
Viktor, I was actually hired for a job (5 years long) because I was NOT experienced with the product. They wanted a "fresh" perspective on things. Seemed the experienced guys all wanted to do things the same old way. It was very fun and we came up with some facinating new things. One of the guys that had been there for years really resented it though. He cornered me one time and said "You young guys think because you combine a few parts and make them one that you've really acomplished something!" I had never said a negative thing to him. I actually respected him for his "seniority" over me and his deep knowledge of the product line. I agree, however, that experience is not always the best approach.
By the way I'm 39 and hardly consider myself a youngster!
RE: Way of designing
Women: In my experience, women are fantastic to have in the team and often very talented but they seem to prefer other fields to Engineering such as physics, Architecture, IT and so on. The medical world tells us that women's spatial awareness is generally not as good as mens. In my experience their drawing skills and maths are often better as is their attention to detail.
Lefties: There does seem to be a disproportionate amount of left handed designers but I've seen nothing to suggest that they are any better than their right handed collegues (like me).
Experience: For me there's a big difference between someone with experience and someone who thinks they know it all. My most hated attitude is designers who are faced with a problem and respond with 'How did we solve that before?/what do our competitors do?/What does the book say?' When what is needed is fresh ideas to stay ahead of the competition.
RE: Way of designing
As for being left handed…. ‘Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., and Ronald Reagan are all left-handed. Also, research on primates since the 1920s shows that all primates have hand preferences, and those preferences follow a clear pattern: Lemurs and other prosimians tend to be left-handed; macaques and other old-world monkeys are evenly split between lefties and righties; among gorillas and chimpanzees, 35 percent are lefties, while in humans that percentage hovers around 10’.
(Source – www.dyslexia-teacher.com/t121.html )
Speedy
"Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure."
RE: Way of designing
Yes, how do you show how good you are as a designer in an interview situation. I come from a Product/Industrial design background but I'm now 50/50 Industrial designer/mechanical design engineer(pukka ImechE in case you're wondering). If I go for an Industrial design job I'm expected to bring a portfolio showing pictures of projects and so on to support my incredibly convincing chatter.
If I go for an engineering job, you just get the chatter. That has always struck me as wierd. I can talk at Olympic standard but that doesn't make me a great designer.
We are told that left handers use have a dominant right brain which is the more creative side, right handers have dominant left brain (I don't make the rules!) which is the more logical side. As you need to be both logical and creative to be a designer who's to say what is better?
RE: Way of designing
“My most hated attitude is designers who are faced with a problem and respond with 'How did we solve that before?/what do our competitors do?/What does the book say?' When what is needed is fresh ideas to stay ahead of the competition.” - sorry, I am a dummy so I do not understand how you are going to stay ahead of competition if you do not know the answer to the question “What do our competitors do?” - explain me please.
Then, how far are you going to stay ahead? - it is another important question.
Then – if you do not know what “book says” or just ignore it ….do you really think you can design something feasible? Yes, you can ignore the laws of physics….but only on the paper – it can take it all – incorrect friction coefficient, force diagram, improper materials selection, etc. However, once you try to build something real, you will see the difference. It is not like violating speed limit law (if you are not caught, it is OK?) – the ignorance of basic laws will “hit” you anyway. We are designers – it has a little to do with free-lance painters. You have to be responsible for every line you made so you should be able to answer a simple question – WHY? If a housewife puts some soft in the soup – you would ask her why she did so – as far as the taste is good nobody cares. However, an engineer should be able to provide a kind of rationally to each of his/her technical decision. Answers - Because I believe or feel so – do not work here.
I use to tech my students: IN GOD WE TRUST, ANYONE ELSE SHOULD BRING THE DATA.
Viktor
http://viktorastakhov.tripod.com
RE: Way of designing
Allow me to explain myself (This is what I get for trying to be brief).
My problem is people who look for a ready made solution to new problems and they don't seem to think that in-depth creativity is part of normal design. I'm not talking about the laws of physics, I'm very well versed on them thank you for the lecture, but books have to be understood (I've found numerous mistakes in text books and mumerous times when the basic equation just wasn't the right one for the job) and their contents applied with knowledge and insight. Of course you should be fully aware of the competition but if you think the way to beat them is to copy them then count me out. I've seen quite a lot of that which is why I'm complaining about it.
As I said, I may have started as an Idustrial designer but I'm now a qualified mechanical design engineer with 13 years of serious experience under my belt and I prove myself on a daily basis so I'd appreciate a little less patronising. I'm not one of your students.
RE: Way of designing
I am very sorry – it was not my intent at all.
“you think the way to beat them is to copy them then count me out.” - this is a wrong way. However, most of companies do this copycatting in design and manufacturing. I hope you are aware of this. Say – six sigma or lean manufacturing concepts – typical example of copycatting without even understanding.
“….but books have to be understood” – this is exactly my point. The problem is HOW?
Viktor
http://viktorastakhov.tripod.com
RE: Way of designing
Maybe its just me but I really don't like copying as a design technique. Thats not the same as saying don't use common components or don't stick to preferred methods. The machines we design often have to be the first of their kind. That means that I'm very sensitive to designers trying to make their own lives easy by copying old (often not very good) ideas rather than going the much more in-depth route I prefer and getting the optimum design.
To answer the second question, you understand the books by having a good foundation of all the core subjects the books are dealing with and understanding the topics on a fundamental level.
How do you do that? Study hard and make sure you understand it. What scares me is engineers delving into books on subjects they are shakey on, pulling data out of the books they have no way of evaluating and, because it came from a book, assuming that whatever they do with that data will produce the right result. That doesn't mean books are bad, they are great, just don't see them as a final answer.
RE: Way of designing
People who were considered rebels or non-conformists did most of the great designs I know of. I’ll admit that many of them did not receive the just rewards for their innovations but that is because of the greedy copy-cats who seldom think for themselves or come up with an original idea. I have actually been able to make a decent living without having to give up my individuality.
This may rain fire on my head but (and I’m just asking) isn’t the conformist view a European idea? I’ll admit that a lot of U.S. citizens hate to be thought of as being part of the “collective”. I believe it’s our individual strengths that make us strong as a unit. I’ve always thought that a good engineer, designer, manager, whatever, will surround him/herself with people who have strengths where he/she is weak. It the insecure person who only surrounds him/herself with those that are weaker (or considered less intelligent).
Go ahead and blast me if you feel the need. I really would like everyone’s feedback. You see, I work for myself now. I do most of my work from my home and I kind of miss the iron-sharpening-iron environment. I’m glad I found this thread! Sorry to have gone off on a tangent again!
RE: Way of designing
What do you think R & D stands for???
Rip-off and Duplicate. It's unfortunate but when it comes to truly innovative design, most of what is out there tends to have it's roots in the forementioned play on the acronym.
Ram air for instance?!
RE: Way of designing
RE: Way of designing
RE: Way of designing
Rousell, I'm not sure about the way Americans and Europeans think, I'm not sure it's a matter of "individual" or "collective" thoughts. There are strengths and weaknesses in "copying" a design. Many systems that exist today have existed in the past. When new processes or materials become available, they might be applied in different and "new" ways, but the basic building blocks (ie the mathmatics and physics) are all the same.
But many times, if you copy a design without first understanding the How and Why, you are doomed to failure. Many times, when you base a new design on a pre-existing design (ie copy) there are some concessions that have to be made. These concessions deal with how your company works, and where their expertise lays.
I was at a company once that copied a competitors product, at least the drive system for it. It was a total loss, as the design that was copied was based on an electrical system, and the company I was at only knew hydraulics. They thought it would be a simple thing to copy the design and swap out the electronics for hydraulics. They ended up shipping 60 units, and within 12 months, recalled every single one.
I was told once that anything you attempt to do has been attempted before, you only have to find the right book that describes the attempt that succeeded.
"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."
RE: Way of designing
RE: Way of designing
My opinion about copies is that no matter how many patents to take (and by the way how much you do invest in lawyers) if your idea is good enough you will be copied. This will raise controversy again, buy I do not remember the name of the Italian guy who invented the telephone, but surely everybody remembers Alex Bell.
Here in South America, there is no working patent protection scheme. Yes we have the institutions, and we have a patents office, but in the practice it is even complicated for Microsoft to enforce them.
Reality is that most mechanical designs (profitable mechanical designs?) around here are one of a kind. I think that is partly a cause, and partly an effect of our lack of intellectual protection.
Experience is ok. It tempers you juvenile impetus to reinvent the wheel. However the most representative part of our work is done when we look things <<from out of the frame>> and come with the clever and unseen solution. I don’t know how many of you had contact with Feinman’s Books on Physics, but he changed my perception of the world. But to get this clever solution, you have to have seen enough working (and not working) devices to sort out the impossible solutions that come to your mind.
It is very seldom that we have a really, really, new idea. Most of our ideas are born from things we have seen before, only recombined and applied at a different machine.
The main problem is still to know which is the right solution, being yours, or not. Most times when you include your cost of redesign and its risks (when we don’t understand what we are doing, Murphy is an optimist advisor), things already made are cheaper.
I think that in some level we operate like Tolkien, who said something like this: All the things I have read and my linguistics studies are like the leaves that have fallen in the ground and decompose, is from these humus that my writings are born.
sancat
RE: Way of designing
RE: Way of designing
Two copying stories:
As a young designer I was asked to copy a mechanism from a competitors machine. It was very simple and it worked a treat. Problem was, in theory it shouldn't have been as good as it was. There was something extra in the process which just couldn't be seen (building jigs, tolerances, tiny geometric details, material spec, whatever)and in the end I designed a new mechanism which I understood which has worked fine ever since. I still don't know how it worked so well and I had it in my hand. I was glad I couldn't copy it and I was happy with my alternative and unique solution.
Competition copied one of our machines. It was industry standard for a while and they stole the basic layout and added a few whistles and bells. While they were doing that, we designed the replacement machine which featured a solution to a big problem area in the one they'd copied. Plus a few whistles and bells. Result was - their machine looked out of date when it was new and our new machine became the new industry standard.
RE: Way of designing
Speedy
"Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure."
RE: Way of designing
I recently went to a course about Product Design. The people who were talking were more interested in Product Time to Market than applying for patents that cost a lot of cash and having to put your cards on the table at such an early stage of development.
They thought that it was a fair trade off between getting your product to market quickly and making your cash, rather than paying for patents. Then the rest have to play catch up (they are going to copy your idea one way or another whether it is patented or not). While sombody else is copying your design you could be imroving it or working on something else.
It certainly makes sense on some products, especially these days with the throw away society in full swing. Your product might only have a life cycle of a couple of years so what is the point in patenting it, unless it comes back into fashion ten years later.
RE: Way of designing
When we develope a new product, we know that we only have about 9-12 months before we start seeing knock-offs from our competitors. It's all part of the game of controlling market share.
"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."
RE: Way of designing
The question was 'How do you define your way of designing?'.
Our considered answer is...
1. Have some kind of thoughts in your head - perhaps 3D thoughts would be nice.
2. Understand these thoughts with stuff you have learned. Some people like to go to university to do learning. Some go to university and don't learn and some seem to find knowledge in other places. Perhaps books.
3. Spend a great deal of time and money obtaining and learning to use a 3D CAD station. If you are older and more experienced, you may want to use a pencil first. Either can be used to draw your thoughts. You may wish to use your left or right hand for drawing. If you use you left hand, you will have reason to believe that you are posessed of a rare talent.
4. You may want to be a woman at this stage. Aparently they're quite rare and highly sought after.
5. You may or may not wish to patent your thoughts. Money is involved one way or another.
Did I miss anything?
RE: Way of designing
"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."
RE: Way of designing
1. The latest Forbes has a great section on innovation.
2. Copying ideas out of books is not designing. But I read the question as being about how different people design.
I freely admit that I am not one of those people who immediately sees a solution spring full blown into his / her mind.
I check to see what is already done that might relate, let it churn in my mind while I do other things, take the problem out occasionally and turn it over and over like a squirrel with a peanut deciding where to start.
I think that the looking at catalogs is just as valid as 3-D CAD as a means to design. Neither one is designing but both are tools for designing.
I’m not sure if taking a lot of commonly available pieces and making something new out of them counts as “real” designing or not. That is pretty much what I do.
I designed a manufacturing process using chemicals to come up with an effective process to replace one that uses cyanide. Going though a catalog I found a chemical called Ammonium Cobaltous Sulfate. I thought it might work because the Nitrogen in Ammonia might do the same job as the Nitrogen in Cyanide. I bought some and tried it. It improved the process. Was that designing or not? How about if there is controversy about why it worked? If I was designing and it did work but for the wrong reason was I really designing or just guessing?
3. Somewhere way up above it looks like two folks think they are arguing when it looks to me like they are agreeing from two different viewpoints.
Tom
Hey,
If I don’t post to you folks until then, you all have a good holiday.
As Ami the Finn says “Nice that you exist”
Tom
RE: Way of designing
You got it totally right, your wise words cover almost all!
I would add
6. Even if you are an excellent designer, Murphy will find a way into your project, no matter if you followed or not Biggadike wise words.
Tom,
I think that the fact that you realized something that nobody saw before, makes you not only a designer, but also an inventor. Controversy doesnt matter as long as the thing work. You got the Aha! factor. (I would patent that, seems pretty useful, and seems that in these forums there are lots of copiers...ha ha ha...)
From my experience you get the Aha! when you are away of our work (in my case in the shower, no cad, no paper...)
Have everybody a Merry Xtmas, and a New Year better that the one that just passed.
sancat
RE: Way of designing
Even frustrated sarcasm has a place in solving some problems - personally evidenced by the fact that I have managed to remain married to one person for 15 years now. This is a lengthy design, one that I learn about as I go.
Merry Christmas everyone, and have great New Year!!
RE: Way of designing
First. In every project I have worked on, we have a brain storming session which defines what we are trying to accomplish and provides some practical solutions.
Second. While I do think in 3D, the next step is to nail down all of the KNOWNs and I do that in CAD. It has to be THIS high, it can only be THIS big, and it has to travel THIS far and do THAT. This allows me to SEE where the problems will be and find a solution.
Third. I also look to see what has already been done. This is a cost saving process since any parts that can be reused or purchased will reduce the final cost. I also spend a lot of time on the web searching for parts and resorces that I can use. My 'Work Related' directory in 'Favories' is quite extensive and has been growing for years.
Forth. I have a general picture of the finished machine, but I look for the most critical areas and solve them first. I have never copied a design (I hate limitations) but a good idea is still a good idea and when I see something I can use it, why reinvent the wheel. I also talk to the people in the Machine Shop a lot and value their input.
In chess I normally have a plan of attack and can see a few moves ahead, 3 or 4, not 30 or 40. A Grand Master might be able to see that far ahead but it is beyond me. The same thing applies to seeing a finished machine from at the start of a project. Visualization is not the problem, I dream in 3D and many solutions magically appear after a good nights sleep (ask my wife). The problem is that with a complex machine there may be 300 or 400 parts to keep track of (not counting fasteners).
From 13 to 18 my family ran a Garage and Salvage company. In the Navy I studied electronics and became a Sonar Tech. I later worked in Machine Shops and Welding Shops and eventually went into Drafting. I've spent nearly 20 years in engineering, held the position of a Electro/Mechanical Designer for over 10 years and had the TITLE of Mechanical Engineer for 3 years.
Still, I have no degree so what does that make me?
Lee
RE: Way of designing
Really good at what you do without the arrogant attitude.
Now I'm just assuming you are not arrogant, but most people that work up to their position in life tend to be less arrogant than those people that get there from a text book -- and that's coming from a textbook taught engineer who is now working on the experience part, with lessons in humility along the way.
RE: Way of designing
I did the learning through experience thing for a few years then realized it was only going to get me so far so I went off to get a degree (actually I studied for the degree at the same time, which is somewhat harder). Without the degree or some other formal study you have the following problems:
1/ You can only learn from your immediate environment.
2/ New problems may stump you if your breadth of knowledge is limited.
3/ You may never learn some of the more refined aspects of Engineering science which will allow you to use your abilities to the full.
4/ You may have difficulty proving to a potential new employer just what a clever person you really are.
You may also find yourself getting really defensive in the presence of people with degrees. In my opinion, you need a bit of both to be a good designer.
RE: Way of designing
Starrider, you sound very humble yet knowledgable. I think I would like working with you. I imagine we could accomplish a great deal.
Swertel, you obviously have keen insight. You must be good at what you do also.
I think that years have a way of humbling you (if you let them - and that's a good thing!)
RE: Way of designing
RE: Way of designing
Because as time goes on and the more OTHER ideas you see, the more you realize that there are a TON of other ideas and smart people out there.
The most arrogant people I see is the Jr engineer that is "in charge" of a certain project.. That is the one that seems to think they have to "impress" people the most.
A wise man once told me," If you're good at something, you don't have to tell anyone....They know."
RE: Way of designing
None of us like cocky juniors but we were all junior once and at least the cocky ones turn up to work and don't fall asleep. A few crash-and-burns can take the edge off the cockyness but leave the drive and confidence needed to try new ideas.
RE: Way of designing
Thank you. I don't believe I have an arrogant attitude, but then again, who does?
Actually, I have a flat forehead! It comes from years of smashing my hand against it when I finally notice something obvious. The sound of that blow is always accompanied by a groan and the word 'Stupid!' It doesn't help that other designers / engineers missed it as well.
Biggadike
You are correct as far as you went. There are two other items that should be added.
5/ Automatic Screening (BS mandatory) eliminates a large percentage of the jobs available. It may not be a rocket science position but ability only counts if your resume is not automatically put in the reject pile.
6/ If you do get the position, it almost becomes a trap and your employer knows it. Because of 5/ you are much less likely to change jobs or to even complain. Your salary may be higher but it will still be on the low side of the papered (BS) scale.
I am not sure of the validity of #2 because I love a challenge. There have been many times when an assignment has taken me into new territory, and I love it every time it happens. Personally, I believe that the surest way to evaluate someone is to give them an assignment (that they are unfamiliar with) and watch how they react. Floundering is only permitted for a short time. If you toss them in the water and they learn to swim, you know that you can safely invest more time in them because they are worth it.
As to getting defensive. I have never cared about who has what degree or not. People are people. I respect people who are decisive, knowledgeable, and committed to doing the best that they can.
I don't mind criticism from any source. I try to make friends with the people on the production floor and especially with every Machinist in the machine shop. These people can make or break you. (I've seen machinists standing idle, trying not to be noticed, while waiting to complain about a missing dimension on a print. They didn't like the guy who's name was on the drawing. I want them to call me.)
I do want the ability to defend myself and my design before any other option is considered. I have had occasions where a manager has scrapped a design without really looking at it or allowing me to explain why I made the choices I made. I find this is intolerable. I may have been on the wrong tract, in his opinion, but that does not excuse common curtsey.
Every time I become unemployed I wish I had it to do over again. I have over 100 credit hours and was in college and was sitting on 3 AA degrees when I quit (my wife gave me an ultimatum to move to Florida or else). I have looked various colleges since then but every time they want me to almost start over again. Yes, the credits are still there but they don't apply.
Rousell
Thank you. Maybe someday.
Lee
RE: Way of designing
I just wanted to say yes and amen to what StarrRider said about a manager nixxing a design before letting you explain it or defend it! I abhore that!
I once had an Electrical Designer suggest to me a way of doing something. Don't get me wrong - this guy was great - at electrical design. We were like brothers. I did the mechanical, he did the electrical. I never tried to do his job but he ALWAYS thought he could do mine.
Anyway, he made this suggestion and I asked him to explain it to me. I asked him to show me why it was a better idea than I what I was doing. I wasn't poo-pooing his idea but I had lots of thought in my design and I thought that if wanted me to do it his way the least he could do was defend his idea. He got really angry and called me an egotistical, arrogant bastard. He claimed that I never listened to anyone's ideas. I pointed out several example of where I had recently used several ideas from others (mainly a programmer on one of the CNC machines) and how I made sure that he got recognition and credit at the meetings (even those that he wasn't a part of). I told my electrical buddy that if the idea didn't work that I could not tell the owner (I worked directly under the owner, so did he) that I did it because the electrical guy told me to. He would ask me who was doing my job! I told the electrical guy (nameless obviously) that he needed to sell me on the idea before I was willing to put my name on it. He just got pissed and stomped away.
Several hours later I get a call from the owner (who worked and lived in another state) with this 'fresh' idea. He tells me that he wants to 'try' something that he just thought of. His idea was the same as the electrical guy. I told him why I thought it was faulty (he had a sales background, not engineering). He told me he was the boss and to do it anyway. I told him alright.
I went to visit my electrical buddy at his office. I told him that I had just gotten a call from the owner. He went ballistic. He told me "Yeah, I called him. He thought it was a great idea and now he knows whose idea it was too."
We proceeded to make ten machines with the new 'idea'. We didn't prototype it (per the owner's instruction). The parts were made to spec. They all fit together nicely but...... the concept didn't work. We lost several thousand dollars and a lot of time (we were a small company and couldn't really absorb big blunders like a large company can). I resented working on it even though I did it all according to the 'idea' the electrical guy gave. (In other words, I didn't sabotage his idea).
When I asked him about it afterwards he said "Hey, it was just a suggestion. I'm not the mechanical designer, you are. You didn't have to do it." The owner actually called me and apologized. He told me that he hired me to to the design and that from now on he would leave it to me. (He never could keep his hands out of things but he actually had some really good ideas from time to time.)
I quit that job and started my own business. The company went under. (Not because of me leaving but because of how it was poorly managed. Since the owner lived out of state - when the cat's away, the mice will play.)
I correspond every few months with the electrical guy although things have always been cool since then. That was about 5 years ago.
Sorry, I had to vent.
RE: Way of designing
I sympathizes. I really do, but at least the owner did apologize to you and he did pay for his mistake.
I've worked for a couple of different people who were like that. Not being able to keep from helping I mean. At one place the owner oversaw the bidding on all jobs and recommended a solution. The jobs were simple and the pace was very fast. From bid acceptance to shipment averaged 2 weeks. In a normally week I would do 1 or 2 of the more complex jobs and 3 to 5 simple ones. At that speed, mistakes happen, especially with a 2D Cad system.
The owner never got angry, even if I didn't follow his suggestion. Further, he made it plain that offering an explanation was pointless. When something blew up, he would sit there with a half smile on his face staring at me until I had a solution or a way to fix the problem. Remaking parts was never an option even if it was obvious that something was not to print.
It took me far to long to figure out how to handle him or what he wanted, but after I did, it became easy. All he wanted to hear was "I'll take care of it!" As soon as he heard that everything was fine.
You are right about this thread though. It is getting rather long. Maybe we should start another one labeled "Just Venting"!!! That ought to be good for a least a couple hundred responses. <Big Grin>
Lee
RE: Way of designing
Now you've done it.. We'll have to make this thread its own web-site.
We had a software and electronics manager who did that stuff all the time. His attitude (which is REALLY common with software engineers) is that his stuff was difficult, everyone elses was easy. Luckily no-one ever forced me to take on his ideas. Not so with managers who haven't really been paying attention to your project but turn up, give it 5 minutes thought and force you to implement their half-arsed idea and get really shirty when you try and discuss it with them. I used to get that all the time but age, experience and being proved right a few times have taken their toll.
For me, the big lesson with study over experience happened when I got to design an entire machine on my own for the first time. It was a smaller version of one we already made and it had to be lighter, cheaper.. you know the score.
I had this really great idea for the main assembly which was really light and simple. I did some stress calculations (there was a lot of stress) sized the components accordingly and we made the first prototype. The thing was, it didn't quite work. There was just too much flex in the assembly and unexpected bits were bending. No-one elese had the time or inclination to work with me and get the idea off the ground when we all knew we could put in a smaller version of the existing design. The thing is, I've since studied a good number of engineering courses and I believe that if I did the same thing today, I could make it work. Often its the little subtle details of how stuff behaves which throws you and its very difficult to understand materials at a microscopic and atomic level without studying materials science. Thats when degrees really come in handy.
RE: Way of designing
RE: Way of designing
I do have to agree with you. Material Science is one of my many weaknesses and I know it. In this case, I have a (mental) list of tried an true materials that I know and uses constantly. When I have to use something else, I spend time in the catalogs and on the web and come up with some likely candidates. The next stop is always the machine shop (it is almost a certainty that someone down there will hate one of my choices - they also offer alternatives). Finally, if there is time, I'll order samples of the best choice and a couple of alternatives (just in case) and play with it in the machine shop and under the conditions where I plan to use it. If there isn't, I am not so proud that I'm above asking for help from another engineer, my manager, or even the VP of Engineering.
You see, I did read your last sentence and I do understand your point. The thing is that everyone is weak in one area or another. That isn't what matters. What does matter is how you handle those weaknesses. I am weak in many areas and I know it. It does make me a little slower, and a lot more careful, but I can not let that stop me. I love what I'm doing, using my head and finding solutions.
Lee
RE: Way of designing
Materials science is a good example of an area which many people fall down on, even those with degrees. I have tended to specialise in it when studying but compared to a full-on materials scientist I'm below novice grade. Even degrees don't always help. A few collegues of mine have Engineering Degrees but because they were focused away from pure Engineering Science, they have little more than a rudimentary understanding of the core sciences and very little knowledge of materials. I've been in your situation myself and decided that I'd rather spend seven years filling in all the gaps in my knowledge than always feel like I knew 'not quite enough'. That's just the decision I made from where I stood at the time. It worked well for me; studying engineering while practicing it is a potent combination which I find gives you an edge on those who live on a campus while they study then try to reconsile that knowledge in the 'real world'.
RE: Way of designing
I work with a number of engineers, and I wonder why some even went into the engineering field to begin with. I have always thought that wanting to be an engineer (electrical, mechanical, etc) was a mental defect that a person was born with. Don't get me wrong, but that was a compliment.
I know an engineer (mechanical) that completed thier MBA right after getting their PE. They had hopes of moving up the corporate ladder, but things aren't working out for them. They tried to give this person some management positions, but the person isn't a leader, and has no vision. Now this engineer is nothing more than a glorified call cesk technician. I can only think of the wasted time, money and effort that went into a ME and then a MBA, only to be satisfied with dealing with customers all day.
"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."
RE: Way of designing
The problem is that people like that give good people with the same qualifications a bad name. Its the same with Institutes who will make someone a member just on the basis of their qualifiactions when they might be a useless engineer who was just good at cramming for college exams.
I sit next to just such a person and boy does it make it hard to get enthusiastic about stuff when you've seen what an idiot with a good looking CV can achieve above good talented engineers!
Boy we've tapped a rich seam of resentment and bile here..
PS- I'm struggling to chose between:
Why didn't anyone tell me about the communication problem?
and
The blame-culture was his fault..
As my motto. Any suggestions?
RE: Way of designing
Viktor
http://viktorastakhov.tripod.com
RE: Way of designing
To insist on a leader with an MBA is myopic...I know MBA ppl that couldn't lead a group of boy scouts across the street.
A good, formal education SHOULD be a qualifier and many times it is..
But it's up to the individual !!!!
In my line of work (plastic mold design/build), a class A tool maker STILL makes the best designer.
OK, what is a class A toolmaker?? And why do I say this?
He is a man that KNOWS what will work... he can run ALL the equipment ...He can read any blueprint...He has a formal education in engineering....(HE CAN DESIGN TOO)... Has worked on the floor .. is capable of RUNNING a mold shop... Which means he can answer ALL questions.
NOW HEAR THIS..... This is a person that can do it all..HAS DONE IT ALL.....This is NOT a snuff-chewing slob...The candidate I'm talking about is a class A toolmaker...
Please understand the meaning of "class A".
RE: Way of designing
A "good" designer must have skills similar to a "good" manager. He/she must set aside any pre-conceived notions on what the solution should be and carefully evaluate the technology, requirements, test and analysis data, manufacturing process, materials, costs, vendors, etc. that go into the design. It would be good if the designer had hands-on multi-disciplinary skills in all aspects of the design, however, this is usually not the case, especially for a complex system. The "good" designer must therefore develop the ability to listen with an open mind to various individuals within an organization and be capable of integrating this information and translating it into a workable design.
This brings to mind a couple of attitudes that I have seen from "bad" designers when I was doing consulting as an analysis and test engineer. "... I already know what the problem is--I just need to design the solution ..." or, "... You want to solve the problem, I'm only interested in fixing it ..." Needless to say, neither of these designers were successful.
pj
RE: Way of designing
I think it has something to do with the profession… We deal with difficult stuff, and we are (if we are) successful at that. Somehow, we begin to think that we own the truth. Yes, we listen; yes we try to apply others ideas, but deep deep inside us, we have our opinion, which we think is better than the others’ opinion.
My father made, only with high school studies, a complete raw edge V-belt factory. However, I saw his sufferings at structural design (had to be made by someone else) and the endlessly trial and failure approach.
As Bismarck once said, I know people learn from mistakes, but I prefer to learn from someone else’s mistakes. That is formal education. Said that, I still have the deepest respect for someone that is able enough to make things work just with lots and lots of intelligence, and without taking advantage of other’s mistakes. Just think what he could have done with that booster!
I just read MBA. What would you think of a good designer (cockiness), who happens to get an MBA, from a good graduate school (cockiness again)? Would that make him a genius and the most wanted individual in industrial America?
sancat
RE: Way of designing
Smokehouse
“Ford quality is in "full" reverse???? Didn't I just see a new showcase Mustang on TV the other night??” - I meant the policy in full reverse not quality. Besides, to make a nice “box” does not mean to make a good car.
Take it easy.
An engineer dies and reports to hell. Pretty soon, the engineer becomes
dissatisfied with the level of comfort in hell, and starts designing and
building improvements. After a while, they've got air conditioning and
flush toilets and escalators, and the engineer is a pretty popular guy.
One day God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer: "So,
how's it going down there in hell?"
Satan replies: "Hey things are going great. We've got air conditioning and
flush toilets and escalators, and there's no telling what this engineer is
going to come up with next."
God replies: "What??? You've got an engineer? That's a mistake - he should
never have gotten down there; send him up here."
Satan says: "No way. I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm
keeping him."
God says: "Send him back up here or I'll sue."
Satan laughs uproariously and answers: "Yeah, right. And just where are you
going to get a lawyer?"
Viktor
http://viktorastakhov.tripod.com
RE: Way of designing
My favourite people to work with are those who can engage in a discussion, which may become a debate which may become an energeticly argued debate... without losing the thread, failing to make their point clearly, taking any of it personally, failing to listen to others or pulling rank.
I reckon the only people who can do this are those who are neither arrogant nor humble. In an nut-shell: If you know what you're talking about, then lets hear what you have to say, the rest of you can wait outside.
RE: Way of designing
My best method for overcoming this is by modeling in clay or drawing it on paper. My thoughts can manifest themselves on the fly by working in these media. Once I have something on paper or in my hand (clay) that somewhat resembles what I envisioned in my minds eye, I sit down at the computer and start modeling.
I've found this process to also improve my ability to build parts and assemblies in my minds eye. Well I hope this might help, and don't forget it takes time and practice and develop your minds eye. Good luck!
RE: Way of designing
I develop and design consumer products (3D Cadd, degreed ME), mostly out of plastic, and a few things a class-a tool maker would have to learn before he was a good consumer product designer are:
Plastic material properites (regarding design, function, assembly, manufacturing, product environment, cost, etc...)
The marketing - sometimes we don't use the best mechanical design because people would never buy the product. Form does not always follow function. A great design can get tossed due to cost, looks, feel, the marketing guy down the hall hates it, number of parts, doesn't WIP well, all sorts of reasons. The "best designer" needs to be able to design around these and should know of them while designing so they never make it to the reviews. You have to learn your customer base and design for point of sale as well as durability, cost, weight, function... etc. If it never leave the shelf your boss will not care how well it works.
I guess I'm saying, no one can say who would make the best designer - no that isn't right... the best designers make the best designers. I tend to feel I'm a good designer. My products tend to sell (credit goes also to marketing, ID, manufacturing, and sales). Does this make me the "best designer"? No. Just a good consuemr product designer. I bet a class-A tool maker would make a good tool designer - that's there knowledge base!
RE: Way of designing
When I stated that a class A toolmaker would make a good designer, I meant a mold designer.
He/she would design only the mold, not the part.
A journeyman toolmaker might not be so good designing say a special machine..or most anything out of his line of work.
I never meant to imply that he would..
Moldmaking/designing is a specific area of expertise and the person that has been exposed to the most applications SHOULD be pretty good at it.
The person that has worked with all kinds of components such as:
..slides/cams, slides/hydraulics, unscrewing cores, rising angular cams, delayed ejection systems, hot runner systems..etc.....
is a mighty valuble person. Now if this person has installed these components and built molds around them, then they should make a good designer.
A class A toolmaker will know the metallurgy involved as well. Let's face it, there are only a few kinds of steel normally used in mold building.
He/she will (SHOULD) know how to calculate the molding pressure directed on a slide for example...
Now let's say this candidate works in a place where they not only build molds but also run them.
The toolmaker works closely with the molding process so when it comes to designing let's say gates, runners, vents, ejection, draft angles, etc...He SHOULD be ahead of the game.
Anyways, these are some of the reasons I say and still say a Class A toolmaker will make the best designer.....
(Remember, I said MOLD designer).
RE: Way of designing
Fortunately I am self employed and can get away with "sleeping" on the job. Most employers probably wouldn't go for it.
It's been an interesting topic, one that could easily become philosophical.
RE: Way of designing
I get where you're coming from but for me, the tool-designer analogy doesn't work on one level:
Tool design (correct me if I'm wrong) involves two things - knowledge of the specific engineering used in tool design and experience gained about the 'black-art' side of the process where the theory doesn't go the whole way to predicting the end result.
This is all good stuff and these are valuable people but they don't epitomise good 'designers' for me because their field is too narrow and can be learned over time by most engineers.
For me its all about the difference between Art and Craft: Craft is all about learning techniques and applying them with great skill.
Art is all about the extra something you add to the craft side; The stuff you do that goes beyond the craft.
A really good designer can be thrown into a new process and by applying their knowledge of the craft and adding to that the art of good designing, they will produce a unique and valuable end result.
For me, your class A tool-designer is only a 'great designer' if next week he/she could be a great something-else-designer.
RE: Way of designing
Competition in the field of moldmaking/designing is fierce today..Mold building is going off-shore at an accelerated pace now.
The reasons are many and complicated..
The point I'm getting at is that a moldmaker/designer simply cannot afford to waste one minute contemplating a new "wheel".
In 99% of mold design, the parameters are forgone...There is a right way and a wrong way...The smart/experienced designer has seen them all tried and knows the right way.
I'm NOT saying that innovation has no place in mold design!!!
However MOST applications are paramatized..
Let's take one project and compare the experienced mold designer and the "artist"..
We need a part for the Mold to produce so let's say it's a small bowl for simplicity's sake.
Needles to say, the end customer has supplied the part file.
First we go through the molding parameters..the amount projected, the material, the press it should run in.
This will give us the mold size, steel requirements, etc..
At this time, I can visualize the entire mold....the water system, the ejection system, the runner system, cavity and core..
Now we go to work:
Prime considerations are MONEY...TIME...and with NO mistakes.
This is what I mean about the mold design being "paramatized"
The money just isn't there for any wasted time..
I prolly haven't explained myself very well on this but you can see what I'm getting at..
RE: Way of designing
A well rounded Designer has knowledge and experinces that cover a very broad range of disciplines. A Designer might be able to design a chair, ergonomic work center, packaging machine, or swoopy product housing. A Mold Designer could try, but might fumble.
I've driven a few top fuel dragsters down the quater mile at 170mph, but I wouldn't want to tackle Watkins Glen at 90mph. You have drivers in both NHRA and NASCAR, but the NHRA drivers are a bit too specilized for what they do. A NASCAR driver might be able to hit the tree on time, and not miss any shifts. With practice they could rival a NHRA driver. I don't think it would work the same way in reverse.
Sorry if I went off on a tangent.
"The attempt and not the deed confounds us."
RE: Way of designing
You wrote;
Smokehouse, I think what Biggadike was trying to say was that a Mold Designer is a very specialized field. They might be great for designing molds, but their area of expertise is too narrow. If they step outside their area, they will be less successful.
I couldn't agree MORE!
That's part of what I've been trying to say all along
Unless a person was educated or trained in mold design, there is NOWAY he/she can do this job..
THis is exactly why I say a class A toolmaker will make the best MOLD DESIGNER....It goes without saying that he will be lost in other areas..
I had the pleasure of working with a machine designer a few years ago. THis man was an absolute genious. Some of the machines we built included catwalks all around !!
They were major league creations.
He had the ability to visualize every part on this!! One of the tricks is knowing all about "movement". Do we need hydraulic,Cams, electric motors, vibrators, turn tables????
Plus the limit switches and "dummy proofing" for example..
However, he could not design a mold. Could he learn?? Sure..
Can any other designers of whatever design a mold??? Or a progressive die??
I guess what I'm getting at is NOBODY gets it all...I really don't believe that merely being an educated designer will get the job done, I don't care how "artistic" one is either...
Most areas of creation are specialized, not only mold making.
Whew....
RE: Way of designing
What I was getting at is really that the proof of a great designer come when they are faced with diverse challenges which force them to understand design and engineering on a far more fundamental level than just what can be learned parrot-fashion over time.
That doesn't mean that someone who only designs in one field couldn't be a great designer, its just that their mettle has yet to be tested to the full.
Example: I used to design 'lights' (luminaires to use the proper term). They are pretty easy in the scheme of things. Now I design big complex machines. Tomorrow, who knows? If I had stayed in the lighting business, would I be as good a designer?
The answer would have to be 'no' I think. I wouldn't have stretched myself as much and my experience base would have been far smaller. My core ability would have been the same though.
RE: Way of designing
What motivated you in the first instance to become an engineer?
Do you think that the pay is appropriate for what you do? Or is satisfaction in what you do more of a motivator?
And is there another job, in an ideal world, that you would rather do?
RE: Way of designing
I made good money before becoming an engineer - but I was frustrated in that I felt I had more to offer - that is I felt capable, given additional education and training, of contributing more to the world, if you will.
I was looking for more of a challenge in my work life, which, like it or not, is a big part of anyone's life.
I am thankful that I am a degreed engineer. This is the profession I have chosen and for me, there is not one better.