Let the Record show that Jim Wilkins on or about
Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:47:27 -0800 (PST) did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Jan 18, 10:54*am, Frnak McKenney
wrote:
Which of the following exercises in electronics, for example, should
be considered "assembling" and which would be "building":

There is no simple answer. it's always the question of what to buy vs
build. Hams used to make their own coils, to a lesser extent
capacitors, and originally their diodes. Usually the best choice is to
buy commercial stock and customize it, whether it's tubing or
transistors.

Personally I've cut the tree and built the sawmill, reground the
planer blades, hardened and tempered the chisel, but those go way
beyond the accepted definition of custom woodworking. Electronics and
metalworking both depend on raw material that's extremely difficult to
make on a small scale. We are limited to cutting and rearranging,
except for the rare project that demands blacksmithing iron or gluing
copper foil onto sculpted fiberglass shapes.

I think there is a difference between "assembly" and "building"
even if both are using the same parts; similar between the people who
just follow the recipe, and hose who start with the recipe and tinker
with it. You know the sort, they make a soup, just like it says on
the recipie, only they added a little bit of this, and some of that,
and a pinch of the hot peppers. and just "let it cook till it was
done." Yeah, those are the exact amounts they used "some", "a little
bit" (not a _bit_, but a _little bit_), and the time was "till done."
Precision guesswork.
But when it comes to "science" projects, you get the same sort of
thing. Those who can follow the instructions to the letter, and no
further; and those who follow the instructions to the letter, because
they know that in this case, there is no other way.

Maybe it is semantics. I assemble what I don't know, or what I am
provided. I build what I need, even if I use a precut/collected
"kit." E.G. Pre-fab house or shed kits. Everything is there, and
all you have to do it put it together. But there is a difference
between the results when assembled by the fumbled fingered, and when
assembled by the guy who "did this for a living, once." (There is
also a difference between the results of the person who is only going
to do this the once, and the person who may do this the once, or maybe
more.)
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:03:19 -0800, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Let the Record show that Jim Wilkins on or about
Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:47:27 -0800 (PST) did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Jan 18, 10:54*am, Frnak McKenney
wrote:
Which of the following exercises in electronics, for example, should
be considered "assembling" and which would be "building":

There is no simple answer. it's always the question of what to buy vs
build. Hams used to make their own coils, to a lesser extent
capacitors, and originally their diodes. Usually the best choice is to
buy commercial stock and customize it, whether it's tubing or
transistors.

Personally I've cut the tree and built the sawmill, reground the
planer blades, hardened and tempered the chisel, but those go way
beyond the accepted definition of custom woodworking. Electronics and
metalworking both depend on raw material that's extremely difficult to
make on a small scale. We are limited to cutting and rearranging,
except for the rare project that demands blacksmithing iron or gluing
copper foil onto sculpted fiberglass shapes.

I think there is a difference between "assembly" and "building"
even if both are using the same parts; similar between the people who
just follow the recipe, and hose who start with the recipe and tinker
with it. You know the sort, they make a soup, just like it says on
the recipie, only they added a little bit of this, and some of that,
and a pinch of the hot peppers. and just "let it cook till it was
done." Yeah, those are the exact amounts they used "some", "a little
bit" (not a _bit_, but a _little bit_), and the time was "till done."
Precision guesswork.
But when it comes to "science" projects, you get the same sort of
thing. Those who can follow the instructions to the letter, and no
further; and those who follow the instructions to the letter, because
they know that in this case, there is no other way.

Okay. I _think_ we're talking about the same kind of "attitude" or
"approach"... but what is it that makes(?) allows(?) encourages(?) a
person to take one approach or the other?

Maybe it is semantics. I assemble what I don't know, or what I am
provided. I build what I need, even if I use a precut/collected
"kit." E.G. Pre-fab house or shed kits. Everything is there, and
all you have to do it put it together. ...

Yup. If there is some part of a project that I could "chunk" into a
readily available part I might buy it, or I might buy a kit or
follow detailed instructions to construct it if doing so didn't add
significantly to the cost or time to complete the original project.
Or I might decide that the learning was worth the extra time or
cost, that it could be excus... er, "cost-justified as a skills
acquisition investment".grin!

... But there is a difference
between the results when assembled by the fumbled fingered, and when
assembled by the guy who "did this for a living, once." (There is
also a difference between the results of the person who is only going
to do this the once, and the person who may do this the once, or maybe
more.)

But what is it that distinguishes... well, let's call them people
who are willing to experiment, to push the boundaries at least a
little, from those who don't?

Is it possible that at least some of the people who purchase a kit
of some kind and simply follow the instructions to completion feel
that they _are_ experimenting, that they are pushing their own
boundaries?

I'd be reluctant to believe that there are People Who Can and People
Who Cannot, since I seem to find myself in either category at
different times, even on the same project.

Yet the difference seems to be something more than, say, the amount
of available free time. That might be a _necessary_ condition -- if
I have a customer who wants his job done last week, for example, I
will tend to use "canned" solutions starting with the ones I know
best -- but I don't think that it's a _sufficient_ condition. But
what are other necessary conditions?

And (getting back to the OP's question) do you have any indeas on
how can we go about "making more of" whatever it is, perhaps through
inspiration, example, education, or whatever?


Frank
--
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize
-- T. Pratchett
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)

On Jan 24, 10:55*am, Frnak McKenney
wrote:
...
Okay. I _think_ we're talking about the same kind of "attitude" or
"approach"... but what is it that makes(?) allows(?) encourages(?) a
person to take one approach or the other?
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates

My wild guess is that creativity requires manual dexterity plus
willingness to make mistakes plus a mind that can animate in 3
dimensions. I've seen people give up for lack of each.

jsw