"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
nightjar cpb@ wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
...
A an engineer, the rightness of a structure is that it performs its
function adequately. Neatness may or may nor feature there. Only if its
likley to be actually inspected or maintained does it matter in my
book..a rats nest of cables works, but a neat array of cable looms
inspires confidence. But if you never see it, the rats nest may be just
as good. And if its CHEAPER its BETTER engineering solution.

I would vioew that as an accountant's solution, not an engineering one.
To my mind, an engineering solution is where you design something to do a
job, with tolerances to suit the needs of the job and make it neatly to
the specification and tolerances in the design. However, for a hole in
plasterboard, just neat is adequate for me. As I said, we have a basic
difference in philosophy.

Colin Bignell


That's the trouble with you non engineers: you think its like the VW
adverts..

My degree was in engineering, from Glasgow University. I owned and ran an
engineering business for more than quarter of a century, until I sold it off
a couple of years ago, that eventually occupied 7,000 square feet of factory
space and produced over 40% net profit..

Engineering is design for function. The appearances only function is to be
pleasing to the purchaser or user.Why the eye don't see, the heart don't
grieve over..

That is not how I was trained. My father used to be paid piece work and he
soon discovered that making things well in the first place meant he never
had to rectify anything, unlike most of his co-workers, who shared your
philosophy. As a result, he earned a lot more than they did.

Colin Bignell