On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:50:44 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:52:43 +0700 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Correct. But they started with the S&W "Russian" and seemed to have
gone downhill :-)

"A designer knows that they are finished, not when there is no
more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Yes, I've read that too but it is hardly true today. Automobiles
started out with hand starters, manual transmission and acetylene
lights and look at them now.

True. But the question is: are the "gizmos" which replace those
items as simple as they can be? (Leaving aside the whole issue of how
complex an automobile is/was compared to operating a horse.) The
principle still holds, no matter how complex something is, there is a
point where one cannot remove some thing without having it "not work".

Even a Rube Goldberg extravaganza can use this principle, of
removing the bits and pieces which don't serve the purpose. Granted,
it is sometimes difficult to be sure what the purpose of a Rube
Goldberg "Device to Fry an Egg" might actually be, so flags, banners,
bells and whistles could be essential parts of the design. Why are
you placing this stick here, when it is neither functional, or
decorative?

I'm still not sure that tells the whole story. The first Ford V-8, for
example, was a side valve engine with no valve clearance adjustment.
Far more simple then modern overhead valve, variable valve timing,
engines.

And if you do not want overhead valves, or adjustable valves, then
the original design was "perfect". OTOH, I recall reading that
setting the valves on a Deusenburg was a forty hour task. _That_
obviously was something which could most likely be aided by some
"efficiency" and simplification in the design. But ... as I
understand it, people who could afford them new (or can afford them
now) can effort the mechanic's charges.

"Setting the valves" on the old ford engines consisted of grinding the
valve stem to the correct length :-)

Cars today seem to all have air conditioning a device that isn't even
necessary for operation - cars lacked this device for most of
automotive history - for another example.

So? Cars lacked windshield wipers, and turn signals for a long
time, either. But, they have them now. It is much like the tail fins
of the fifties. They really didn't add anything to the automobile,
but they "looked cool." And so, as a designer, how to I make these
superfluous things in the most efficient manner.
And the question remains: is there anything in this doohickey
which is not necessary for the doohickey to function as desired? My
reference to Rube Goldberg devices is just this: it may be overly
complicated, but are there any elements which can be removed and still
have the device work as intended. I'm thinking of the video of the
mechanical corkscrew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fAr09XtJw0 - a
complicated device which will uncork a bottle, and pour a glass of
wine. I can't get close to it, but it does appear to be a "clean"
design - nothing which does not have a "purpose". Yes, the "simpler"
means by far would be a standard corkscrew from Walmart. But if you
want a corkscrew which pours the wine, and it mechanical and hand
cranked ... this is one of them.

The thesis just doesn't seem true when applied to consumer end items
where the opposite seems to likely be the guide line.

My Lady and I had a similar discussion on "Wants" vs "Needs."
there are only so many things which qualify as true "needs": air
water, food and shelter. Much of what we "need" is really a want. Do
people really "need" cars? Do they need windows, doors and heaters?
(What is the hot sports car, the one which comes without a roof,
radio, heater or other heavy weight adding items?)

Exactly. Without poking a stick in anyone's eye, there was a
discussion here about smelly dish washers and I thought, "I don't
believe that I actually know anyone that has a dishwasher". I asked my
wife and she didn't know anyone either.
I'm now wondering whether we are really living the good life?

The issue is: what is wanted? "Simple transportation" - a
horseless carriage powered by a one cylinder gasoline engine? Or a
car with internal environmental controls, an efficient gasoline
engine, tinted windows with electrical controls?

Exactly. But of course, one needs the ABS system, the tinted windows,
the air con with the his and her's controls, the automatic gearbox,
power steering and a two tone paint job, and all the rest.... to drive
down to the super market to get a box of cereal.

At least that is how the T.V. portrays it :-)

In a sense, as an design engineer, why they want it this way, is
not as important as "how do I make this in the most efficient method,
without unnecessary elements?" Who cares if the entire thing is
"unnecessary" - it pays the bills. Be it tail fins, air conditioners,
slinkys, "Rock'em Sock'em Fighting' Robots" or plastic fake dog poop -
it pays the bills and there's a way to do this without a lot of extra
steps.


tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich.
Discussing the decline in the US's tech edge, James Niccol once wrote
"It used to be that the USA was pretty good at producing stuff teenaged
boys could lose a finger or two playing with."
--
Cheers,

John B.