A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Designers vs. engineers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 7th 19, 05:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default 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  
Old March 7th 19, 05:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default 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  
Old March 7th 19, 05:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,117
Default 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  
Old March 7th 19, 08:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default 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  
Old March 7th 19, 03:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Zen Cycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 80
Default 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  
Old March 7th 19, 06:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,960
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.