too-long spokes

On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Nov 3, 2:30 pm, wrote:
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 3-11-2012 0:07, schreef:

That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.

The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,

better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of

quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result

possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The

only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not

all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least

as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the

motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do

the job better I don't do it myself.

It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to

"good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent

work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and

quality combine that way.

The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.


... in cost competitive production of quantities.

I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.


I just meant there's a more rare wonderful synergy where a pro who
cares about excellence such that he has developed competency to the
point of "churning out" excellent work without even trying.

I don't think that happens. What I do see is people who have trained
themselves to work at very close tolerances, but they certainly do
try.... all the time.

BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.


And good enough is certainly good enough.
--
Cheers,
John B.

On Nov 3, 11:13 pm, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:



On Nov 3, 2:30 pm, wrote:
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 3-11-2012 0:07, schreef:

That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.

The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,

better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of

quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result

possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself.. The

only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not

all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least

as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the

motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do

the job better I don't do it myself.

It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to

"good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent

work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and

quality combine that way.

The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.

... in cost competitive production of quantities.

I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function.. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.

I just meant there's a more rare wonderful synergy where a pro who
cares about excellence such that he has developed competency to the
point of "churning out" excellent work without even trying.

I don't think that happens. What I do see is people who have trained
themselves to work at very close tolerances, but they certainly do
try.... all the time.


All of them? ... all the time? ... for excellence??

BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.

And good enough is certainly good enough.


.... or it wouldn't be,

On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 00:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:13 pm, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:



On Nov 3, 2:30 pm, wrote:
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 3-11-2012 0:07, schreef:

That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.

The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,

better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of

quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result

possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The

only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not

all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least

as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the

motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do

the job better I don't do it myself.

It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to

"good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent

work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and

quality combine that way.

The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.

... in cost competitive production of quantities.

I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.

I just meant there's a more rare wonderful synergy where a pro who
cares about excellence such that he has developed competency to the
point of "churning out" excellent work without even trying.

I don't think that happens. What I do see is people who have trained
themselves to work at very close tolerances, but they certainly do
try.... all the time.


All of them? ... all the time? ... for excellence??


It undoubtedly varies with the trade. I was talking abut machinists
and yes, the guys that did good work did good work all the time.
the ones that did less good work didn't change much either. That is
how you assigned the work - stuff that had to be as close as perfect
as possible went to That Guy; bushings in a back-hoe arm went to That
Other Guy.

It may well be that the guys I worked with don't exist any more but
back in the day you had to make something to get your journeyman's
papers and if it wasn't good enough you didn't get your certificate.

Most of the guys did the best job that they could do, not because the
Boss would get on their ass, but because they didn't ever want anyone
to pick up something that they had done and say, "Who made this POS?"



BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.

And good enough is certainly good enough.


... or it wouldn't be,
--
Cheers,
John B.

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:43:18 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/3/2012 2:21 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 3-11-2012 0:07, schreef:



That makes sense to me.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSS


the bicycle wheel is not a bridge across Puget Sound.

the bicycle wheel does not require a math planning, paper/computer construction from its immense size and cost...

nor does cutting fabric for a pants leg.

the craftsman takes the finished product materials or templatye materials fitting the pieces together to arrive at a temporary end product. The temporary end product is then evaluated against the desired goal of the finished final product.

that's how its done. Spke clac is unecessary, unuseful, regressive, backwards and stupid.

On Nov 4, 2:53 am, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 00:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:



On Nov 3, 11:13 pm, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Nov 3, 2:30 pm, wrote:
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 3-11-2012 0:07, schreef:

That makes sense to me. I enjoy taking on lots of widely varying projects - from welding to home remodeling to writing music harmonies to mechanism design to machining, etc. etc. But I'm aware that a pro can do most of them far faster than I can. One of the reasons is, pros develop good judgment for the necessary tolerance.

The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,

better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of

quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result

possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The

only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not

all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least

as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the

motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do

the job better I don't do it myself.

It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to

"good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent

work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and

quality combine that way.

The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.

... in cost competitive production of quantities.

I suppose in some cases, it's appearance that's at stake, not function. But IME, even then a really competent pro knows what will show and what won't.

I just meant there's a more rare wonderful synergy where a pro who
cares about excellence such that he has developed competency to the
point of "churning out" excellent work without even trying.

I don't think that happens. What I do see is people who have trained
themselves to work at very close tolerances, but they certainly do
try.... all the time.

All of them? ... all the time? ... for excellence??

It undoubtedly varies with the trade. I was talking abut machinists
and yes, the guys that did good work did good work all the time.

You're right; I understand and agree; and I didn't mean they weren't
trying to do good work. I just meant they can be even be distracted
from focused pursuit of excellence and still knock it out (virtually
in their sleep).

the ones that did less good work didn't change much either. That is
how you assigned the work - stuff that had to be as close as perfect
as possible went to That Guy; bushings in a back-hoe arm went to That
Other Guy.


Exactly.

It may well be that the guys I worked with don't exist any more but
back in the day you had to make something to get your journeyman's
papers and if it wasn't good enough you didn't get your certificate.


Some guys can be talented enough to ace the "exams" , but don't care
about what they're doing. I don't want them building my bike.

Most of the guys did the best job that they could do, not because the
Boss would get on their ass, but because they didn't ever want anyone
to pick up something that they had done and say, "Who made this POS?"


That's a horrible motivation. Fear? (Fear has it's place - like
motivating me off the road forthwith when that car came at me head on,
but... ) Pride? That's not so all bad, either. Desire and intent to
satisfy something outside is important (pleasing the Big Boss Man is
kind of sad, unless it's out of deserved respect - not mere contrived
hierarchy); but genuine excellence has to come from inside.

BTW, I had a long conversation this morning with the guy I mentioned earlier, the one who helped me on my basement room. He now lives about 900 miles away, so I haven't seen him for a while. But he talked about two recent jobs, doing interior work on the mansions of millionaires. His reputation is good enough for him to land work with very exacting clients.

And good enough is certainly good enough.

... or it wouldn't be,

On Nov 4, 4:58 am, datakoll wrote:
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:43:18 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/3/2012 2:21 PM, Dan O wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 3-11-2012 0:07, schreef:

That makes sense to me.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSS

the bicycle wheel is not a bridge across Puget Sound.

the bicycle wheel does not require a math planning, paper/computer construction from its immense size and cost...

nor does cutting fabric for a pants leg.

the craftsman takes the finished product materials or templatye materials fitting the pieces together to arrive at a temporary end product. The temporary end product is then evaluated against the desired goal of the finished final product.

that's how its done. Spke clac is unecessary, unuseful, regressive, backwards and stupid.

Well, I'm no wheel craftsman, but I'd like to be, understand what
you're saying there and agree, and would love to learn from gurus and
be able to work with meatware and 2x4's and whatnot; but spocacl was
at least *useful* to me when I had that ebay wheel with the nine
trashed spokes from a thrown chain. I had good DT spokes onhand, but
too long. Spocalc told me (ostensibly) how long they needed to be, I
took them in to the LBS, told the guy how long spocalc said they
shoudl be, he cut and rolled them, I replaced the damaged spokes one-
at-a-time, tensioned and trued (came up really round and straight),
with perfect nipple engagement.

Dan O wrote:
:On Nov 4, 4:58 am, datakoll wrote:
: On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:43:18 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
: On 11/3/2012 2:21 PM, Dan O wrote:
:
: On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman wrote:
:
: Op 3-11-2012 0:07, schreef:
:
: That makes sense to me.
:
: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSS
:
: the bicycle wheel is not a bridge across Puget Sound.
:
: the bicycle wheel does not require a math planning, paper/computer construction from its immense size and cost...
:
: nor does cutting fabric for a pants leg.
:
: the craftsman takes the finished product materials or templatye materials fitting the pieces together to arrive at a temporary end product. The temporary end product is then evaluated against the desired goal of the finished final product.
:
: that's how its done. Spke clac is unecessary, unuseful, regressive, backwards and stupid.

No, it's not. that's the 'artisanal' way of doing things, which is
unneccessary, regressive, backwards, and stupid. Since we understand
the geometry of the wheel, given a particular ERD, flange spacing, and
dish, we can use math to make the wheel perfect the first time and not
have to waste time and material with trial and error. There are no
subjective hoo-haw with a bicycle wheel. It needs to be round, true,
tensioned properly, and stress relieved properly. A wheel that meets
those standards is just like any other wheel that does, it doesn't
matter if I use spoccalc to come up with the spoke length, I fit
spokes and reroll them till they're short enough, or give to a wizard
who just looks at it and rolls some spokes without measuring.

--
sig 108

Op zaterdag 3 november 2012 22:30:19 UTC+1 schreef het volgende:
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:21:23 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:

On Nov 3, 4:11 am, Lou Holtman wrote:



The reason pro's can do it faster is: they have more experience,



better/suitable tools but the often cut corners at the expense of



quality. I'm not a 'good enough' person, I want the best result



possible. I'm quite handy and I can do most of the homework myself. The



only problem is time. I have not the time to do it all myself and not



all the tools. The results of the projects I did myself will be at least



as good as a pro, most of the times better. Why? Because I have the



motivation to spend the time to make the result perfect. If a pro can do



the job better I don't do it myself.



It's true that pros generally have to be productive, and this leads to



"good enough"; but some do really care to do always (truly) excellent



work. It's a too rare and wonderful combination when skill and



quality combine that way.



The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.


With that kind of tolerances you talking about machining. In machining tolerances are determent by tools and equipment. If I put a tolerance on one of my drawings it says more about on what equipment/tool it will be made than which person it will make.
We have a state of the art laser cutter in our R&D workshop. It can produce holes in any kind of form with an in between hole tolerance of plus minus 0.15 mm right from a CAD drawing. If that is good enough for me there is no use to put dimensions and tolerances on the drawing. It comes right out of the laser cutter within half an hour after I finished my drawing. That is progress in my kind of work. Fast and right every time.


Lou

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 4:50:25 PM UTC-5, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zaterdag 3 november 2012 22:30:19 UTC+1 schreef het volgende:



The point about the phrase "Good enough is perfect" is that tolerances exist for a reason. One of the things that freshman engineering students have to learn is that when dimensioning a part, one doesn't put tolerances of "plus or minus 0.001" on everything. Instead, one analyzes how large the tolerances can be while still providing the desired functionality. If plus or minus 0.050" functions just as well, there's real detriment in shooting for anything tighter.





With that kind of tolerances you talking about machining. In machining tolerances are determent by tools and equipment. If I put a tolerance on one of my drawings it says more about on what equipment/tool it will be made than which person it will make.

We have a state of the art laser cutter in our R&D workshop. It can produce holes in any kind of form with an in between hole tolerance of plus minus 0.15 mm right from a CAD drawing. If that is good enough for me there is no use to put dimensions and tolerances on the drawing. It comes right out of the laser cutter within half an hour after I finished my drawing. That is progress in my kind of work. Fast and right every time.

Right. But not everything can be made by those methods. Tolerances - however they may be expressed - are still necessary in almost all work. That includes things as disparate as carpentry, cooking, fiddling or building bike wheels.

- Frank Krygowski

so what's Cooper's problem ?

Coops problem is what I experience...

the deal here is we're trying to mesh with the process not play electronic games with 2nd and tertiary information/input/output.

we should be the wheel, feel the wheel, understand the wheel personaly up front close in..

right form the start