|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Designers vs. engineers
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 22:08:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 3/6/2019 8:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Re log books... But how often does one make modifications to a house. Certainly it can be done but in reality it very seldom happens. Well, we've been in this house well over 30 years, so I've done a lot. I tend to document stuff, so for some of it (like the finished room in the basement) I have my drawings and notes. But over the years there have been times I wished I had more information. I can remember wondering about brands and colors of paint I used, about which breaker controlled which circuit, which damper in which air duct controlled the heat or AC to which room, etc. Regarding documentation: At my first engineering job, we were putting some new restrooms into a new medical clinic in the plant. There was a sewer line about 20 feet away, we were told, but somehow there were no drawings showing the existing sewer lines. We dug up a lot of concrete looking for that one. The really weird part was, one guy claimed he could find it by dowsing, using two welding rods. He walked forward with the L-shaped rods pointing straight ahead, and at a certain spot the rods swung outward. "It's here" he said. I grabbed the rods and darned if they didn't do exactly the same for me. We dug extra deep there, but still no sewer line. Then someone notice there were water pipes running exactly overhead of where the rods swung out. I have no explanation for that. My grandfather could douse for water and I know that he found a spot near the first house that my father built and when they dug there they found water. Of course, no one bothers to dig a second well just to see whether there is also water ten or twenty or thirty feet away :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Designers vs. engineers
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 22:16:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 3/6/2019 9:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 16:12:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: But then, the rest of the exhibition seems to glorify the 1950s and 1960s as an era of "good design." Weird. Such museum exhibits are concept bicycles that were actually built. Most never make it off the drawing board (or computah screen). https://www.google.com/search?q=concept+bicycles&tbm=isch Among the few that can actually be built, even fewer are actually rideable by humans. So, why do designers continue to product impractical artistic bicycle creations? Because, like concept automobiles, nobody is going to manufacture the entire concept bicycle in its original form. However, they will borrow or steal parts, pieces, and ideas that might be useful. When I was a teenager, I had a friend who was a) very much into hot rods, and b) quite a good cartoonist. He was always drawing totally impractical but "cool" looking cartoon cars. I figure a lot of the concept bicycles are part of the same genre. They look cool. Nobody wants anything more from them. More generally: Whenever I see some physical object that seems to make no practical sense, I assume it must qualify as art. Most of the time I seem to be right. On the other hand we have https://tinyurl.com/y6st6ltq :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Designers vs. engineers
On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 11:26:55 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 22:16:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: More generally: Whenever I see some physical object that seems to make no practical sense, I assume it must qualify as art. Most of the time I seem to be right. On the other hand we have https://tinyurl.com/y6st6ltq :-) Well, paintings of naked ladies are always fine art. Sculptures too. - Frank Krygowski |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Designers vs. engineers
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 20:41:04 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 11:26:55 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 22:16:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: More generally: Whenever I see some physical object that seems to make no practical sense, I assume it must qualify as art. Most of the time I seem to be right. On the other hand we have https://tinyurl.com/y6st6ltq :-) Well, paintings of naked ladies are always fine art. Sculptures too. - Frank Krygowski Even, it is said, naked ladies. -- Cheers, John B. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Designers vs. engineers
On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 11:20:25 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 22:08:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/6/2019 8:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Re log books... But how often does one make modifications to a house. Certainly it can be done but in reality it very seldom happens. Well, we've been in this house well over 30 years, so I've done a lot. I tend to document stuff, so for some of it (like the finished room in the basement) I have my drawings and notes. But over the years there have been times I wished I had more information. I can remember wondering about brands and colors of paint I used, about which breaker controlled which circuit, which damper in which air duct controlled the heat or AC to which room, etc. Regarding documentation: At my first engineering job, we were putting some new restrooms into a new medical clinic in the plant. There was a sewer line about 20 feet away, we were told, but somehow there were no drawings showing the existing sewer lines. We dug up a lot of concrete looking for that one. The really weird part was, one guy claimed he could find it by dowsing, using two welding rods. He walked forward with the L-shaped rods pointing straight ahead, and at a certain spot the rods swung outward. "It's here" he said. I grabbed the rods and darned if they didn't do exactly the same for me. We dug extra deep there, but still no sewer line. Then someone notice there were water pipes running exactly overhead of where the rods swung out. I have no explanation for that. My grandfather could douse for water and I know that he found a spot near the first house that my father built and when they dug there they found water. Of course, no one bothers to dig a second well just to see whether there is also water ten or twenty or thirty feet away :-) Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House starring Cary Grant and Myrna Loy (1948) (The crew digging a foundation for a new home has hit ground water at six feet, while the well digger Mr. Tesander has been digging for three days to over 200 feet, just 50 feet away) Jim Blandings: Water, Mr. Tesander. Tesander: Yep. Jim Blandings: At six feet. Tesander: Yep. Jim Blandings: And just over there, you had to go down 227 feet to hit the same water. Tesander: Yep. Jim Blandings: Now, how do you account for that, Mr. Tesander? Tesander: Well, the way it appears to me, Mr. Blandings... over here the water is down around six feet. And over there it's down around 227 feet. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Designers vs. engineers
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 22:16:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 3/6/2019 9:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 16:12:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: But then, the rest of the exhibition seems to glorify the 1950s and 1960s as an era of "good design." Weird. Such museum exhibits are concept bicycles that were actually built. Most never make it off the drawing board (or computah screen). https://www.google.com/search?q=concept+bicycles&tbm=isch Among the few that can actually be built, even fewer are actually rideable by humans. So, why do designers continue to product impractical artistic bicycle creations? Because, like concept automobiles, nobody is going to manufacture the entire concept bicycle in its original form. However, they will borrow or steal parts, pieces, and ideas that might be useful. When I was a teenager, I had a friend who was a) very much into hot rods, and b) quite a good cartoonist. He was always drawing totally impractical but "cool" looking cartoon cars. I figure a lot of the concept bicycles are part of the same genre. They look cool. Nobody wants anything more from them. More generally: Whenever I see some physical object that seems to make no practical sense, I assume it must qualify as art. Most of the time I seem to be right. That may be true for the majority of bicycle and hot rod "art", but there are a few designers and engineers who produce concept drawings in order to "sell" their ideas. I've found it very difficult to explain ideas to a non-technical audience without a drawing, model, prototype, or other visualization aid[1]. When looking at concepts and designs, I always ask myself "What problem are they trying to solve"? It's not always obvious, but if the design is any way unique or innovative, it should be possible. If it looks like a conglomeration of random bad ideas repackaged to look like a cyclists nightmare, then the designer or engineer is trampling on the artists domain. With bicycling, there's a problem with being innovative that usually appears in concept drawings. The basic bicycle design is highly optimized. Changing the design of one component will usually affect the design of adjacent components. If the designer actually considers these changes in the concept drawing, the result often looks like an alien creation that arrived on a flying saucer. I sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between engineering and art. To me, engineering must be reproducible in manufacturing, while art can be a unique and difficult to duplicate creation. If the concept design looks like it's functional and can be manufactured, then it's engineering. If it looks like it would require major modifications in order to be produced, it's art. There are plenty of exceptions to these guidelines, but they've served me well over the years. [1] It's interesting to compare an architects rendering of a building, bridge, or shopping mall design, with what eventuall is built. They're often very different, even when both the rendering and the structural details are on the same pile of blueprints. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/renderings-vs-reality-rise-tree-covered-skyscrapers/ -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helmet Engineers | DirtRoadie | Techniques | 0 | August 7th 10 05:01 PM |
Helmet Engineers | Peter Cole[_2_] | Techniques | 0 | August 7th 10 01:25 PM |
What is the Link Between Engineers and Unicycles? | mafiamike | Unicycling | 82 | September 8th 07 04:18 AM |
Engineers | SteveA | Australia | 45 | June 27th 05 04:23 AM |
Traffic engineers: braindead? | Rich | UK | 35 | May 22nd 05 09:55 AM |