"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:59:49 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


You would have appreciated the board-level repairs I had to make, in
a
shirt and tie, at the Rocky Flats bomb plant. We had sold a Sodick
EDM
to them and we had to fly out to do a repait -- two young Japanese
guys from our staff, one an engineer and the other a technician, and
me (Marketing Manager).

But they make (or made) nuclear-bomb triggers there and the Japanese
couldn't get past the lobby. So they sent me in with some test
equipment and got on the phone with me. We had a box of discrete
parts
and the boards with us that we thought were the problem, but that
wasn't it. So I had to solder a couple of components right on the
shop
floor.

Fortunately, they were through-hole, two-side boards, not
multi-layer.

--
Ed Huntress (KC2NZT)

At Mitre my machine shop was secured behind a cypher lock yet the
Ph.Ds still got in to try to cut lawnmower blades on the bandsaw, at
the wood speed.

However I could leave my soldering station out and the lab door
unlocked, certain that none of them would dare risk using it. Instead
they'd leave the job on the bench with a little note.

Like tying climbing knots and 7018 rod it becomes very easy with
practice.

-jsw

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...

It's not just a mindset. I would love to be able to reliably design
simple solutions to simple problems. I can't, easily. I can COPY
someone's simple solution to a problem, I can, eventually, figure
out
simplifications to some complex solution that I (or someone else)
has come
up with, but a dirt-simple solution that actually works often evades
me.

Fortunately, there are plenty of Really Complex problems out there
just
crying out to be solved, and that I can do.
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Sometimes it helps to jump the wall and look elsewhere. It may not be
original, but I ran a simple A/D converter from an LPT port by sending
"print" data to an attached 8-bit DAC and reading back a comparator
connected to the DAC output and the signal. The 8 data lines were also
connected to other stuff that I ignored during a conversion, and vice
versa.
-jsw

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:44:15 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:02:39 -0700, robobass wrote:


The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be overly

complex. What's the real end goal?

It's often not intentional, just a mindset. I used to design motorized
displays for a toy company. The bases would show the kinetic aspects of
the toys. I would get a proposed design from their engineers, and come
in the next day with revisions that would sometimes halve the cost with
no loss of performance or reliability. I had no real motive to save them
money, I just like simplicity and abhor waste. Most of my suggestions
would be shot down just because they were perceived as cutting corners.

It's not just a mindset. I would love to be able to reliably design
simple solutions to simple problems. I can't, easily. I can COPY
someone's simple solution to a problem, I can, eventually, figure out
simplifications to some complex solution that I (or someone else) has come
up with, but a dirt-simple solution that actually works often evades me.

Fortunately, there are plenty of Really Complex problems out there just
crying out to be solved, and that I can do.

Indeed. Its brain wiring pure and simple..and everyone is wired a bit
differently.

Some of us are very very good at certain aspects...poor at others and
the guy at the next desk is very very good at other certain
aspects..and poor at yours and so on ad infinitum.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:48:26 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.


WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

It had no pentaprism, so it's not actually worth anything. I still have
one left that is complete.

while I'm typically no fan of destroying stuff like this, it is the only
option when no service manuals are available, and you can't hire and old
guy to let you watch a repair.

The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be overly
complex. What's the real end goal?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-F301-F...-/131279111554

As for manuals....

http://cameraobscura.zenfolio.com/downloads



The F and similar high end cameras of its time were designed to do
what the end user wanted..with the technology of the time. No
computers were available small enough to make the F (and many other
devices) equal to todays cameras.

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f/

I realize you need some spiffy mechanisms but they went way overboard with
little things, like how some springs were attached. It's just not
necessary, unless you're trying to have the longest parts list.

An example was the Norden bombsight. A rather complex collection of
mechanisms that is easily surpassed today with a simply app on a smart
cell phone.

humm...a perfect analogy would be the lowly calculator..

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/art...calculator.php

The mechanical supreme was (in my humble opinion) the Curta
Calculator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curta

While not as advanced, my grandmother gave me some sort of mechanical
device for summing numbers. It consisted of sliding pieces of formed sheet
metal, a reset handled and a probe. She used it at the grocery store or
something like that.

Today..a single chip, a solenoid or two and a couple sensors do all
the work in modern cameras. But the F..and the Ftn and F1..were
reliable, accurate works of art/workhorses.... which simply worked
year in and year out.

Gunner, one time commerical photographer and minor camera
collector...with a couple Nikon S1s he regulary shoots and
treasures..circa 1951

I took apart a modern leica rangefinder lense last night and noticed the
inside looked really crude and had all sorts of scratch marks and symbols
on it like it was hand fitted or something. I was surprised by that.

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.


WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

Barbarians - they break what they don't understand.

Tearing stuff apart is the greatest way to learn about how things work.

Yes....if you have lots of money or lots of product to beat to death.

Im curious..would you use the same technique to learn how a Mercedes
SLS AMG GT works?

They are only a quarter million dollars each.

If I had a spare, sure, why not. While I don't fix anything related to
cars, they do seem obnoxously designed with all sorts of pegs and covers
that have to be broken apart to get to anything.

Hell, even headlamp changes require a tear down and small hands.

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 02:15:56 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.

WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

Barbarians - they break what they don't understand.

Tearing stuff apart is the greatest way to learn about how things work.

Disassembling is one thing. It is called "reverse engineering."
Breaking some thing because you don't understand how it works is not
"educational".

It's the fast way to see what's holding something together, and if you
don't need it put back, it's fine.

In fact, taking a hammer to saw to stuff is a good way to learn where the
strong and weak points are in something.

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...

I was just thinking about other things that are just overly complex
for no
reason ...

Have you ever personally participated in the design of new products?

In the software world, yes. People get really carried away with stupid,
overly complex ideas that were just bad to start with.

You start by defining the requirements, or rather debating them until

Actual requirements are usually really hard to come by.

you're too tired to argue, then distribute the work among your
personnel, come up with a separate solution to each requirement,
prototype and test them individually and then together, and finally
try to combine the elements that seem to need no further redesign to
serve multiple functions and reduce tooling, fabrication and assembly
cost while management pesters you to release it to production NOW to
beat the competition to market. They are obsessed with the name
recognition and sales momentum that comes with being first, and know
that the engineers would love to keep playing with it.

All the while realizing that you may be out of a job when it's
complete, unless your performance gets you nominated to the next new
product design team, if there is one.

At the prototype stage having each part serve a single function is an
advantage when it needs to be reworked. Combining and simplifying them
later is time-consuming and non-essential.

Well, in the case of the original F camera of early 1970s revision, every
damn part it connected. There's no sign of any modules of grouped
functionality or subassemblies that are not interconnected in 3 dimensions
with 15 other parts. That's why I wonder if labor was free when thing
thing came off the assembly line. Even assembling it would have taken
ages.

I recall some VCRs that were never designed to be serviced. Replacing one
tire involved actually cutting a hole the stamped metal made up the
transport. Sanyo eventually woke up and redesigned it enlarged openings
where people were previously cutting holes. Stupid design.

Cydrome Leader fired this volley in news:lvq5ev
:

Stupid design.

Only stupid in retrospect. They did not anticipate the need when they
designed it.

You're a mook, CL. Smashing an F-body camera just to complain about the
complexity of it is ridiculous. Even lacking the prism, it was valuable
to someone other than you.

They were complex because of how much they could do -- mechanically,
only. Despite their complexity, they were marvelously reliable. Even
many that got dropped and/or banged around in service continued to work
just fine. I have a 1948 Meteor SP (1/2-frame 35) rotary focal plane
shutter camera that's a lot simpler than a Nikon-F, if you really want
'simple'.

My old Asai Pentax is every bit as complex as a Nikon. Despite its 1980s
origins, it's as reliable today as the day it was built. Film... that's
another problem. Only one maker still out there...

LLoyd

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:

You start by defining the requirements, or rather debating them
until

Actual requirements are usually really hard to come by.
...

If they don't know what they want then you have a chance to tell them.
We've acquired some really great airplanes that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning
"Kelsey recalled in 1977 that he and Saville drew up the specification
using the word interceptor as a way to bypass the inflexible Army Air
Corps requirement for pursuit aircraft to carry no more than 500 lb
(227 kg) of armament including ammunition, as well as the restriction
of single-seat aircraft to one engine. Kelsey was looking for a
minimum of 1,000 lb (454 kg) of armament. Kelsey and Saville aimed to
get a more capable fighter, better at dog-fighting and at
high-altitude combat."

-jsw

On Monday, September 22, 2014 3:31:43 PM UTC-7, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
Cydrome Leader fired this volley in news:lvq5ev

:



Stupid design.



Only stupid in retrospect. They did not anticipate the need when they

designed it.



You're a mook, CL. Smashing an F-body camera just to complain about the

complexity of it is ridiculous. Even lacking the prism, it was valuable

to someone other than you.



They were complex because of how much they could do -- mechanically,

only. Despite their complexity, they were marvelously reliable. Even

many that got dropped and/or banged around in service continued to work

just fine. I have a 1948 Meteor SP (1/2-frame 35) rotary focal plane

shutter camera that's a lot simpler than a Nikon-F, if you really want

'simple'.



My old Asai Pentax is every bit as complex as a Nikon. Despite its 1980s

origins, it's as reliable today as the day it was built. Film... that's

another problem. Only one maker still out there...



LLoyd


For ****s sake, Loud it's not sacred and he is free to do with it want he wants. If he's learning from taking it apart that's great. From what I can tell he learns from his mistakes and he is mechanical. Why don't you save your sanctimonious bull**** for someone who is not a moron because he isn't.

Now read what I wrote above again, Fuctard. Keep reading it until it sinks into your thick skull.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:59:51 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 02:15:56 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.

WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

Barbarians - they break what they don't understand.

Tearing stuff apart is the greatest way to learn about how things work.

Disassembling is one thing. It is called "reverse engineering."
Breaking some thing because you don't understand how it works is not
"educational".

It's the fast way to see what's holding something together, and if you
don't need it put back, it's fine.

In fact, taking a hammer to saw to stuff is a good way to learn where the
strong and weak points are in something.

Thrashing the heck out of it - "drive it like you stole it" is a
better way of finding weak points that matter.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:48:15 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...

I was just thinking about other things that are just overly complex
for no
reason ...

Have you ever personally participated in the design of new products?

In the software world, yes. People get really carried away with stupid,
overly complex ideas that were just bad to start with.

You start by defining the requirements, or rather debating them until

Actual requirements are usually really hard to come by.

you're too tired to argue, then distribute the work among your
personnel, come up with a separate solution to each requirement,
prototype and test them individually and then together, and finally
try to combine the elements that seem to need no further redesign to
serve multiple functions and reduce tooling, fabrication and assembly
cost while management pesters you to release it to production NOW to
beat the competition to market. They are obsessed with the name
recognition and sales momentum that comes with being first, and know
that the engineers would love to keep playing with it.

All the while realizing that you may be out of a job when it's
complete, unless your performance gets you nominated to the next new
product design team, if there is one.

At the prototype stage having each part serve a single function is an
advantage when it needs to be reworked. Combining and simplifying them
later is time-consuming and non-essential.

Well, in the case of the original F camera of early 1970s revision, every
damn part it connected. There's no sign of any modules of grouped
functionality or subassemblies that are not interconnected in 3 dimensions
with 15 other parts. That's why I wonder if labor was free when thing
thing came off the assembly line. Even assembling it would have taken
ages.

The original F camera was one expensive *******.

https://www.cameraquest.com/fhistory.htm

".....Strangely enough the March 1959 Philadelphia photo show saw the
US introduction of three new top brand Japanese SLR lines: the Minolta
SR-2 with 55/1.8 and a list price of $249.50, the Canon Canonflex
with 50/2 and a list price of $299.95, and the Nikon F with a 50/2
had a list price of 359.50.

The Nikon F completely eclipsed everything else in its time as a Pro
35. Professionals switched from the Leica M's (and everything else) to
Nikon F's in legions, and to this day Leica has never recovered. But
more than the Professional's switch from Leica to Nikon, it also
signaled the maturity of the Japanese photo industry.

From that time on, Japan was the new Photographic Industry leader and
Germany would be doomed to play catch up. Zeiss got out of the camera
business. Rollei hangs on bought out by Samsung. Leica continues its
post Leitz family experience once having been owned by a concrete
manufacturer and now has new ties to Yashica.

The Nikon F was a really big deal, a crucial turning point in 35mm
Photography."

http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation...=350&year=1915

That came out to...wait for it... $2,822.39 in 2014 money

With cash discounting...Call it $2500 today.


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:31:43 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Cydrome Leader fired this volley in news:lvq5ev
:

Stupid design.

Only stupid in retrospect. They did not anticipate the need when they
designed it.

You're a mook, CL. Smashing an F-body camera just to complain about the
complexity of it is ridiculous. Even lacking the prism, it was valuable
to someone other than you.

They were complex because of how much they could do -- mechanically,
only. Despite their complexity, they were marvelously reliable. Even
many that got dropped and/or banged around in service continued to work
just fine. I have a 1948 Meteor SP (1/2-frame 35) rotary focal plane
shutter camera that's a lot simpler than a Nikon-F, if you really want
'simple'.

My old Asai Pentax is every bit as complex as a Nikon. Despite its 1980s
origins, it's as reliable today as the day it was built. Film... that's
another problem. Only one maker still out there...

LLoyd

Really? Down to one maker? Damn.

Ive got at least 40 35mm cameras and a host of others in other formats
that I dig out every 6 months or so to wind, trip and work through the
speed ranges to keep em limber and working...and a good sized box of
film in the freezer. Mixed 35mm/120/220 and a few rolls of 680 that
are nearly as old as my 35 yr old son.

On the top of my desk is a Canon AE-1 with a 70-250 Canon lens on it
that I loaded 6 months ago and am just about at the end of the roll.
Been using it for wildlife and "fun" photos of neighbors and
passer-bys. The (2) Canon A-1s are loaded and I put fresh batteries
in them 5 months ago..those are my most "high tech" film cameras..and
I think there is a half roll in the Hassey. Need to start thinking
about where to find some more film. dont I?

The Oly digitals have taken over most of the photo load of course..but
I simply have to get prints in my hands now and then...(Grin)

Gunner


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:59:51 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 02:15:56 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.

WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

Barbarians - they break what they don't understand.

Tearing stuff apart is the greatest way to learn about how things work.

Disassembling is one thing. It is called "reverse engineering."
Breaking some thing because you don't understand how it works is not
"educational".

It's the fast way to see what's holding something together, and if you
don't need it put back, it's fine.

In fact, taking a hammer to saw to stuff is a good way to learn where the
strong and weak points are in something.


Its wanton vandalism of the worst sort. Try convincing yourself it is
something different...but it simply doesnt wash.

Ill bet you would love to smash open one of my Nikon S's.

Current value of the "black/black dial" one is $2500.00

https://www.cameraquest.com/nrfs2bl.htm

Rare as hell

Complicated inside too!

Gunner





"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:52:18 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:48:26 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.


WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

It had no pentaprism, so it's not actually worth anything. I still have
one left that is complete.

while I'm typically no fan of destroying stuff like this, it is the only
option when no service manuals are available, and you can't hire and old
guy to let you watch a repair.

The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be overly
complex. What's the real end goal?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-F301-F...-/131279111554

As for manuals....

http://cameraobscura.zenfolio.com/downloads



The F and similar high end cameras of its time were designed to do
what the end user wanted..with the technology of the time. No
computers were available small enough to make the F (and many other
devices) equal to todays cameras.

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f/

I realize you need some spiffy mechanisms but they went way overboard with
little things, like how some springs were attached. It's just not
necessary, unless you're trying to have the longest parts list.

It was necessary..... for the camera to be tough as an anvil and able
to be used in every possible situation WITHOUT FAIL. The Japs had a
very very good grip on ruggedness and reliablity by the time the F
came out..and they were one of the MOST bullet proof 35mm cameras
ever..every made.



An example was the Norden bombsight. A rather complex collection of
mechanisms that is easily surpassed today with a simply app on a smart
cell phone.

humm...a perfect analogy would be the lowly calculator..

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/art...calculator.php

The mechanical supreme was (in my humble opinion) the Curta
Calculator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curta

While not as advanced, my grandmother gave me some sort of mechanical
device for summing numbers. It consisted of sliding pieces of formed sheet
metal, a reset handled and a probe. She used it at the grocery store or
something like that.

Yes and?

Today..a single chip, a solenoid or two and a couple sensors do all
the work in modern cameras. But the F..and the Ftn and F1..were
reliable, accurate works of art/workhorses.... which simply worked
year in and year out.

Gunner, one time commerical photographer and minor camera
collector...with a couple Nikon S1s he regulary shoots and
treasures..circa 1951

I took apart a modern leica rangefinder lense last night and noticed the
inside looked really crude and had all sorts of scratch marks and symbols
on it like it was hand fitted or something. I was surprised by that.

You took apart a Leica range finder last night.....

And where are you getting these $4000 plus cameras?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=277979&gclid=CjwKEAjwkf-gBRCd-b2m2aOo0EQSJABMeQDkUkVn51AZ5U0-0VEfo931Cz_EdpxWkBLlUb8GtTeK1RoCz8rw_wcB&Q=&is=USA &A=details
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-MP-35m...-/261600381930

You are trolling arnt you? Nice job!! Had me about ready to hunt you
down and slit you from ear to ear. Well done!!

Gunner


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:48:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Mon, 22 Sep 2014
05:44:13 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:02:39 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:


The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be overly

complex. What's the real end goal?

It's often not intentional, just a mindset. I used to design motorized displays for a toy company. The bases would show the kinetic aspects of the toys. I would get a proposed design from their engineers, and come in the next day with revisions that would sometimes halve the cost with no loss of performance or reliability. I had no real motive to save them money, I just like simplicity and abhor waste. Most of my suggestions would be shot down just because they were perceived as cutting corners.

I wonder how much of that shooting down was covering for the "We
couldn't charge as much for it, so it would be less profitable" line
of thought.

Feh. If I can simplify the final production, I don't have to tell
the customer who much it actually cost to make.

Absolutely _all_ of us, who either build or repair things, thank those
who simplify their products and/or software.

OTOH, there is the engineering mantra of

"It meets the specs,
it is under cost,
now take this thing
and just get lost!"

Is that the mantra for the engineers who need to justify their ghastly
salaries do the idiots upstairs? sigh


--
One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love.
-- Sophocles

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

The Oly digitals have taken over most of the photo load of course..but
I simply have to get prints in my hands now and then...(Grin)

'had a whole -good- darkroom at one time. Simmon-Omega D2 enlarger with
the condensor color head, polycontrast filter set, the whole thing.

Gunner, stuff comes, and stuff goes. To be honest, a high-end pro-
digital can do anything and all things film could, except for
manipulation in the darkroom. And that was "once or nothing", at least
with the film, itself... like 'pushing' a roll, or cold-processing for
higher contrast. At least with digital, if you goof, you can try it
again. Screw up a roll of film, and you went out and shot it again.

Lloyd

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:25:28 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:52:18 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:48:26 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.


WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

It had no pentaprism, so it's not actually worth anything. I still have
one left that is complete.

while I'm typically no fan of destroying stuff like this, it is the only
option when no service manuals are available, and you can't hire and old
guy to let you watch a repair.

The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be overly
complex. What's the real end goal?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-F301-F...-/131279111554

As for manuals....

http://cameraobscura.zenfolio.com/downloads



The F and similar high end cameras of its time were designed to do
what the end user wanted..with the technology of the time. No
computers were available small enough to make the F (and many other
devices) equal to todays cameras.

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f/

I realize you need some spiffy mechanisms but they went way overboard with
little things, like how some springs were attached. It's just not
necessary, unless you're trying to have the longest parts list.

It was necessary..... for the camera to be tough as an anvil and able
to be used in every possible situation WITHOUT FAIL. The Japs had a
very very good grip on ruggedness and reliablity by the time the F
came out..and they were one of the MOST bullet proof 35mm cameras
ever..every made.



An example was the Norden bombsight. A rather complex collection of
mechanisms that is easily surpassed today with a simply app on a smart
cell phone.

humm...a perfect analogy would be the lowly calculator..

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/art...calculator.php

The mechanical supreme was (in my humble opinion) the Curta
Calculator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curta

While not as advanced, my grandmother gave me some sort of mechanical
device for summing numbers. It consisted of sliding pieces of formed sheet
metal, a reset handled and a probe. She used it at the grocery store or
something like that.

Yes and?

Today..a single chip, a solenoid or two and a couple sensors do all
the work in modern cameras. But the F..and the Ftn and F1..were
reliable, accurate works of art/workhorses.... which simply worked
year in and year out.

Gunner, one time commerical photographer and minor camera
collector...with a couple Nikon S1s he regulary shoots and
treasures..circa 1951

I took apart a modern leica rangefinder lense last night and noticed the
inside looked really crude and had all sorts of scratch marks and symbols
on it like it was hand fitted or something. I was surprised by that.

You took apart a Leica range finder last night.....

And where are you getting these $4000 plus cameras?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=277979&gclid=CjwKEAjwkf-gBRCd-b2m2aOo0EQSJABMeQDkUkVn51AZ5U0-0VEfo931Cz_EdpxWkBLlUb8GtTeK1RoCz8rw_wcB&Q=&is=USA &A=details
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-MP-35m...-/261600381930

You are trolling arnt you? Nice job!! Had me about ready to hunt you
down and slit you from ear to ear. Well done!!

Unless that "modern Leica range finder" lens was damaged beyond
repair, this guy must have money to burn.

I have two Leica rangefinders. One fell into salt water 50 years ago
and is completely shot, even though it looks OK. I was offered $300
for that body. But I kept it for my collection.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:52:19 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"robobass" wrote in message
...

The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be
overly

complex. What's the real end goal?

It's often not intentional, just a mindset. I used to design motorized
displays for a toy company. The bases would show the kinetic aspects
of the toys. I would get a proposed design from their engineers, and
come in the next day with revisions that would sometimes halve the
cost with no loss of performance or reliability. I had no real motive
to save them money, I just like simplicity and abhor waste. Most of my
suggestions would be shot down just because they were perceived as
cutting corners.

===================

I was asked to simplify the circuit for a custom IC, and did it so
well the engineer was embarrassed and upset he hadn't thought of my
solution, which he couldn't understand at first so I had to build it
for proof. I reduced the complexity of two of their other persistent
problems by half by substituting simple but subtle mechanics for
complex electronics and probably earned more resentment than gratitude
for it, though they did move me from lab tech to design engineer.

Kudos.


The electronic and mechanical engineers at that and several other
places I've worked knew little of each others' discipline and didn't
cooperate very well when it meant subordinating themselves to each
other instead of being in charge. I'm fairly competent at both so
often they dumped the problem on me, and I had to be very diplomatic
to stay on everyones' good side, or at least not be the person they
hated most.

That's cool. I envy your vast knowledge/experience base. (I only made
it to half vast.) Had I wanted to go to college, I likely would have
taken both electrical and mechanical engineering courses. My parents
offered to pay the price. But I was too fed up with people, being a
hermit by nature. I chose auto mechanic tech school over college, as
machines don't talk back.

--
The more you know, the less you need.
-- Aboriginal Saying

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Cydrome Leader fired this volley in news:lvq5ev
:

Stupid design.

Only stupid in retrospect. They did not anticipate the need when they
designed it.

It's still stupid design if nobody though ahead at all.

You're a mook, CL. Smashing an F-body camera just to complain about the
complexity of it is ridiculous. Even lacking the prism, it was valuable
to someone other than you.

A F is not rare or valuable, no matter what you tell yourself, they
churned out trillions of the things. Check prices on keh.com

They were complex because of how much they could do -- mechanically,
only. Despite their complexity, they were marvelously reliable. Even
many that got dropped and/or banged around in service continued to work
just fine. I have a 1948 Meteor SP (1/2-frame 35) rotary focal plane
shutter camera that's a lot simpler than a Nikon-F, if you really want
'simple'.

My old Asai Pentax is every bit as complex as a Nikon. Despite its 1980s
origins, it's as reliable today as the day it was built. Film... that's
another problem. Only one maker still out there...

not true.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:48:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:52:19
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

The electronic and mechanical engineers at that and several other
places I've worked knew little of each others' discipline

Not just the EE & ME. I learned machining. When I was tasked
with making some fenders for a friends walker - of course the first
thing I though of was "get a block of aluminum, and mill it ...".

Walker?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Star_Wars.JPG
(Sorry, first thought. Can you tell I'm a sci-fi fan?)


Sigh, the whole "if all you know is the hammer, everything is a
nail."

Yeah, first thoughts always run along the lines of your most utilized
base of knowledge. Deeper thought runs out and finds more isolated
and less frequently used pools of knowledge.

--
One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love.
-- Sophocles

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:35:05 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Wilkins" on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:52:19
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

The electronic and mechanical engineers at that and several other
places I've worked knew little of each others' discipline

Not just the EE & ME. I learned machining. When I was tasked
with making some fenders for a friends walker - of course the first
thing I though of was "get a block of aluminum, and mill it ...".

Sigh, the whole "if all you know is the hammer, everything is a
nail."


At my first job after the Army I told them I'd like to work my way up
to engineer, so they ran me through all the departments to learn the
intricacies of custom machine design and fabrication.

That was really cool of that company, Jim. I doubt it would happen at
99% of places nowadays.


I'd learned
mechanical drawing in jr high and Statics and the properties of metals

Statics or statistics? I had all the tech classes in early school,
too. Metal and wood shops, basic aviation, HS organic chemistry, mech
dwg.


in college, which were big helps. I didn't actually operate a
Bridgeport, TIG welder or press brake but I learned what they can and
can't do.

Reality sets in once you do get onto a machine. Theory and paperwork
only get you so far. Then it takes a bit of time converting those old
synapses from concept into manual dexterity. It can be shocking, but
it's fun, most of the time, right? All knowledge is good.


I did drill and tap a lot of holes and learn to bend sheet
metal accurately on a manual brake.

Great. I finally got back on my little HF (Harbor Freight, not high
freq) TIG yesterday and once again repaired the steel mount bracket
for Dad's old Craftsman circular saw. I hadn't penetrated well enough
the first time and it only lasted two months of very light work. This
time, I turned the amperage down and spent some time pooling the area
so I got a good, deep puddle. What I didn't burn through the first
time looks, um, fairly good now. (no picture requests, please
Anyway, the more metalworking, plasma cutting, and TIG welding I do,
the more I like it.

I wonder what kind of solar/battery setup I'll need to continue to use
that thing once the grid goes down... Time to start looking at 240v
inverters, I guess.

--
One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love.
-- Sophocles

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:59:49 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
Ed Huntress on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:35:46
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Or, as they used to say at GM, "Any damned fool can design a
carburettor for a Rolls-Royce. It takes a genius to design one for a
Chevrolet."

Or the tongue-in-cheek motto applied to Mercedes-Benz: "Never use
two
parts to do a job when you can get away with three." g

OTOH, when you have three parts, you can replace one of them. B-)

Nowadays, we have modules which are plug and play, do multiple
functions, and can't really be repaired. Not cost effectively,
compared to removing and replacing.
--
pyotr filipivich

That started in the 1980's with surface-mount electronics, which are
substantially more difficult to repair by hand than thru-hole, and not
reliable unless the tech who solders on the new parts is more than
usually skilled and experienced. I got the experience on lab
prototypes where a solder failure was only a brief inconvenience
instead of costing a field service call.

I didn't stay in the field long enough to get that kind of experience.


Compared to thru-hole SMT is very cheap to manufacture, costing little
more to make than the Bill of Materials, and the ICs themselves are
cheaper to make due to the smaller lead frame with much less metal. I
first encountered the no-repair policy on computer add-in cards for
Winchester drives, when the vendor didn't want us to return defective
ones.

The Army taught us troubleshooting to the transistor level. They had
so much difficulty finding recruits who could learn it that they
changed to training LRU (Line-Replaceable Unit) board-swappers.

Sad, isn't it?


The four (of ~80) of us who graduated all had science degrees. The
washouts had a choice of other repair schools so they weren't wasted.

My year at Coleman College's Computer Electronics Technology course
taught me troubleshooting down to the component level, too. I stayed
at it for only 3 years as a test tech before SKF bought out Palomar
Technology (vibration datalogging/pre-failure maintenance) and I
changed to a computer repair/software guy swapping boards in
mainstream personal computers. I've lost, from disuse, most of what I
learned at Coleman in 1986-7.

A friend just retired from the appliance repair field. He was a
natural at troubleshooting beyond the board, but most of his work was
board replacement until they learned that he could do more. He ended
up getting all the "bad" jobs, where board-replacers couldn't fix the
appliance.

Lots of these folks are either getting out of the business or dying
from old age, so what comes next, when all of the true knowledge is
gone? How far away are we from the coming global Idiocracy?

I probably have only 10% of the learning of some of you folks here,
but most of what I have is practical knowledge. I have a feeling that
I'll need all of that (and a whole lot more) in the coming years,
waiting for the other shoe to drop.

--
One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love.
-- Sophocles

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:25:28 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:52:18 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:48:26 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.


WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

It had no pentaprism, so it's not actually worth anything. I still have
one left that is complete.

while I'm typically no fan of destroying stuff like this, it is the only
option when no service manuals are available, and you can't hire and old
guy to let you watch a repair.

The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be overly
complex. What's the real end goal?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-F301-F...-/131279111554

As for manuals....

http://cameraobscura.zenfolio.com/downloads



The F and similar high end cameras of its time were designed to do
what the end user wanted..with the technology of the time. No
computers were available small enough to make the F (and many other
devices) equal to todays cameras.

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f/

I realize you need some spiffy mechanisms but they went way overboard with
little things, like how some springs were attached. It's just not
necessary, unless you're trying to have the longest parts list.

It was necessary..... for the camera to be tough as an anvil and able
to be used in every possible situation WITHOUT FAIL. The Japs had a
very very good grip on ruggedness and reliablity by the time the F
came out..and they were one of the MOST bullet proof 35mm cameras
ever..every made.



An example was the Norden bombsight. A rather complex collection of
mechanisms that is easily surpassed today with a simply app on a smart
cell phone.

humm...a perfect analogy would be the lowly calculator..

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/art...calculator.php

The mechanical supreme was (in my humble opinion) the Curta
Calculator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curta

While not as advanced, my grandmother gave me some sort of mechanical
device for summing numbers. It consisted of sliding pieces of formed sheet
metal, a reset handled and a probe. She used it at the grocery store or
something like that.

Yes and?

Today..a single chip, a solenoid or two and a couple sensors do all
the work in modern cameras. But the F..and the Ftn and F1..were
reliable, accurate works of art/workhorses.... which simply worked
year in and year out.

Gunner, one time commerical photographer and minor camera
collector...with a couple Nikon S1s he regulary shoots and
treasures..circa 1951

I took apart a modern leica rangefinder lense last night and noticed the
inside looked really crude and had all sorts of scratch marks and symbols
on it like it was hand fitted or something. I was surprised by that.

You took apart a Leica range finder last night.....

And where are you getting these $4000 plus cameras?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=277979&gclid=CjwKEAjwkf-gBRCd-b2m2aOo0EQSJABMeQDkUkVn51AZ5U0-0VEfo931Cz_EdpxWkBLlUb8GtTeK1RoCz8rw_wcB&Q=&is=USA &A=details
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-MP-35m...-/261600381930

You are trolling arnt you? Nice job!! Had me about ready to hunt you
down and slit you from ear to ear. Well done!!

Unless that "modern Leica range finder" lens was damaged beyond
repair, this guy must have money to burn.

I have curiousity to burn. Before it (the lens) goes back for some sort of
cam calibration, I wanted to see what was inside. After putting it back
together, it seems to line up correctly at infinity again, matching the
other lenses that do in fact work correctly woth the same body. It appears
the grease is separating into oil though, or they're really heavy handed
with "oil barriers" to prevent water from getting sucked into parts. Some
of the paint on the light baffles is coming off, which is just silly, so
the thing may just go back anyways.

I have two Leica rangefinders. One fell into salt water 50 years ago
and is completely shot, even though it looks OK. I was offered $300
for that body. But I kept it for my collection.

Never taken one of those apart. I have fixed Crown Graphic cameras with
the top rangefinder and light beams. Unlike everything foreign, they're
simple, easy to fix and don't require gadgety tools to work on. It looks
like you need 7 types of spanner wrenches or "split screwdrivers" to
properly take apart an F. Not sure why they stopped at that and didn't got
for 27 or 39 different types. Why anybody would even want to make,
warehouse and then install at least a thousand parts into a camera while
adding as many parts as possible for even mundane use.

A comparison on the self timers on the F vs some sort of Sears branded
1970s Mamiya shows the F has at least twice as many parts. All it is is a
geartrain with a spring and escapement that takes about 10 seconds to hit
ero at which point a cam moves something and fires the trigger release.
They're actually quite similar is size and construction otherwise, so it's
apparent half the Nikon parts simply aren't needed.

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:59:51 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 02:15:56 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:
I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.

WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

Barbarians - they break what they don't understand.

Tearing stuff apart is the greatest way to learn about how things work.

Disassembling is one thing. It is called "reverse engineering."
Breaking some thing because you don't understand how it works is not
"educational".

It's the fast way to see what's holding something together, and if you
don't need it put back, it's fine.

In fact, taking a hammer to saw to stuff is a good way to learn where the
strong and weak points are in something.


Its wanton vandalism of the worst sort. Try convincing yourself it is
something different...but it simply doesnt wash.

Ill bet you would love to smash open one of my Nikon S's.

I wouldn't mind.

Current value of the "black/black dial" one is $2500.00

That's about 33 times more than an F with no prism.

https://www.cameraquest.com/nrfs2bl.htm

Rare as hell

Complicated inside too!

Rangefinder mechanisms can be super complex, although it's not necessary
at all. Does the S have different sight lines and parallax correction?

On 9/22/2014 2:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:19:52 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Steve W. wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.

WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

It had no pentaprism, so it's not actually worth anything. I still have
one left that is complete.

while I'm typically no fan of destroying stuff like this, it is the only
option when no service manuals are available, and you can't hire and old
guy to let you watch a repair.

The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be overly
complex. What's the real end goal?



Service manuals for many Nikon cameras, including the F

http://arcticwolfs.net/downloads.php

interesting. I looked for weeks and found nothing with the exploded
diagram, like this site does actually have.

oh well. Apparently the one I ripped apart had titanium foil instead of
cloth for the shutter. weird stuff.


Thats because the shutter was FAST and cloth couldnt take the stress
for years.


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

Gunner has it - 1000 or higher would be problems... Also think 100%RH
that rots cloth after a while - also makes it heavy and slower.

Some of the photogs found that out in the Viet days.

Martin - former AFRS Most of you know AFRTS when TV was added to Radio
service.

Larry Jaques on Mon, 22 Sep 2014
19:08:42 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:48:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Mon, 22 Sep 2014
05:44:13 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:02:39 -0700 (PDT), robobass
wrote:


The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be overly

complex. What's the real end goal?

It's often not intentional, just a mindset. I used to design motorized displays for a toy company. The bases would show the kinetic aspects of the toys. I would get a proposed design from their engineers, and come in the next day with revisions that would sometimes halve the cost with no loss of performance or reliability. I had no real motive to save them money, I just like simplicity and abhor waste. Most of my suggestions would be shot down just because they were perceived as cutting corners.

I wonder how much of that shooting down was covering for the "We
couldn't charge as much for it, so it would be less profitable" line
of thought.

Feh. If I can simplify the final production, I don't have to tell
the customer who much it actually cost to make.

Absolutely _all_ of us, who either build or repair things, thank those
who simplify their products and/or software.

OTOH, there is the engineering mantra of

"It meets the specs,
it is under cost,
now take this thing
and just get lost!"

Is that the mantra for the engineers who need to justify their ghastly
salaries do the idiots upstairs? sigh

No, it is part of the "Engineer Rap" from a dozen years ago.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Jim Wilkins" on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:35:05
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Wilkins" on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:52:19
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

The electronic and mechanical engineers at that and several other
places I've worked knew little of each others' discipline

Not just the EE & ME. I learned machining. When I was tasked
with making some fenders for a friends walker - of course the first
thing I though of was "get a block of aluminum, and mill it ...".

Sigh, the whole "if all you know is the hammer, everything is a
nail."


At my first job after the Army I told them I'd like to work my way up
to engineer, so they ran me through all the departments to learn the
intricacies of custom machine design and fabrication. I'd learned
mechanical drawing in jr high and Statics and the properties of metals
in college, which were big helps. I didn't actually operate a
Bridgeport, TIG welder or press brake but I learned what they can and
can't do. I did drill and tap a lot of holes and learn to bend sheet
metal accurately on a manual brake.

Learned enough to know when they were attempting to blow smoke ..
-jsw

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Gunner Asch on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:56:43 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

My old Asai Pentax is every bit as complex as a Nikon. Despite its 1980s
origins, it's as reliable today as the day it was built. Film... that's
another problem. Only one maker still out there...

LLoyd

Really? Down to one maker? Damn.

The real problem is finding some place where the film can be
developed, and prints made.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com on Mon, 22 Sep
2014 11:59:38 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:


My suspicion is that they're doing it right. Nostalgia for fixing and
adjusting my S.U. carburetors (carburettors, I guess) on my mother's
kitchen table isn't enough to overcome the fact that I had to do
*something* with my old cars almost every week.


I'd say they are. Even though the purchase cost of autos has gone up vs
real income, the _usage_ cost has plummetted. Most cars of the 1960s and
early 70s required things like valve jobs every 30K; not a minor cost to
someone who could not do the work themselves. Now, it's common to go
200K without a major repair, and only the 'timing belt issue' to deal
with in the interim. "Tune-ups"? Phhhfffttt! Thing of the past. A car
can easily go 100K without even looking at the plugs.

Everything about modern cars works better, is more comfortable, and lasts
FAR longer than those of even 40 years ago. They're more efficient with
fuel and lubricants, and they're far safer.

Some of it was government intervention. Some of it was innovation.

To me, all the above are signs of engineering excellence, regardless of
how difficult the vehicles might be to work on.

Yep.

Lloyd
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Gunner Asch on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:16:02 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

Barbarians - they break what they don't understand.

Tearing stuff apart is the greatest way to learn about how things work.

Disassembling is one thing. It is called "reverse engineering."
Breaking some thing because you don't understand how it works is not
"educational".

It's the fast way to see what's holding something together, and if you
don't need it put back, it's fine.

In fact, taking a hammer to saw to stuff is a good way to learn where the
strong and weak points are in something.


Its wanton vandalism of the worst sort. Try convincing yourself it is
something different...but it simply doesnt wash.

Ill bet you would love to smash open one of my Nikon S's.

Current value of the "black/black dial" one is $2500.00

https://www.cameraquest.com/nrfs2bl.htm

Rare as hell

Complicated inside too!

It came to me that there might be another explanation. Because
when I was a kid, the return lever on my dad's typewriter broke, and
parts were no longer available. Not even from the factory (we
checked).
So one afternoon, I being bored, took it apart. Disassembled it
pretty completely. Saw no reason to keep the cast iron frame, so
broke that up.
It wasn't until decades later, that I realized "there probably was
a metal shop in the High School, an new part could have been made.
Even with 1970 technology." Sigh. So soon old, so late schmart.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On 2014-09-22, Steve W. wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.

WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

It had no pentaprism, so it's not actually worth anything. I still have
one left that is complete.

Pentaprisms can be found -- or waist level finders -- or sports
finders -- or ...

while I'm typically no fan of destroying stuff like this, it is the only
option when no service manuals are available, and you can't hire and old
guy to let you watch a repair.

The question still stands. When do companies design stuff to be overly
complex. What's the real end goal?

To make the camera manufacturable. A lot of those parts are for
tuning the speeds and motions to allow for variations in spring
constants and the like. The cheaper cameras have fewer parts, and less
accuracy as a result -- especially as they age.

Of course, today a lot of that is tuned using microprocessor
chips built into the camera. :-)

Service manuals for many Nikon cameras, including the F

http://arcticwolfs.net/downloads.php

Thank you! I've now downloaded manuals for all the Nikon
SLR cameras I have. (Do you know of a similar site for the Zeiss
Contax?)

Thanks,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | (KV4PH) Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Larry Jaques on Mon, 22 Sep 2014
19:32:34 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:48:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:52:19
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

The electronic and mechanical engineers at that and several other
places I've worked knew little of each others' discipline

Not just the EE & ME. I learned machining. When I was tasked
with making some fenders for a friends walker - of course the first
thing I though of was "get a block of aluminum, and mill it ...".

Walker?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Star_Wars.JPG
(Sorry, first thought. Can you tell I'm a sci-fi fan?)

Ah, more like http://dbsw.net/post/136753099/imperial-walker


Sigh, the whole "if all you know is the hammer, everything is a
nail."

Yeah, first thoughts always run along the lines of your most utilized
base of knowledge. Deeper thought runs out and finds more isolated
and less frequently used pools of knowledge.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Larry Jaques on Mon, 22 Sep 2014
19:50:54 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I did drill and tap a lot of holes and learn to bend sheet
metal accurately on a manual brake.

Great. I finally got back on my little HF (Harbor Freight, not high
freq) TIG yesterday and once again repaired the steel mount bracket
for Dad's old Craftsman circular saw. I hadn't penetrated well enough
the first time and it only lasted two months of very light work. This
time, I turned the amperage down and spent some time pooling the area
so I got a good, deep puddle. What I didn't burn through the first
time looks, um, fairly good now. (no picture requests, please
Anyway, the more metalworking, plasma cutting, and TIG welding I do,
the more I like it.

I wonder what kind of solar/battery setup I'll need to continue to use
that thing once the grid goes down... Time to start looking at 240v
inverters, I guess.

The is rec.crafts.metalworking - you should be planning on the
steam powered generator setup! From Scratch! Refine your own
scratch, too!


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

The Oly digitals have taken over most of the photo load of course..but
I simply have to get prints in my hands now and then...(Grin)

'had a whole -good- darkroom at one time. Simmon-Omega D2 enlarger with
the condensor color head, polycontrast filter set, the whole thing.

Gunner, stuff comes, and stuff goes. To be honest, a high-end pro-
digital can do anything and all things film could, except for
manipulation in the darkroom. And that was "once or nothing", at least
with the film, itself... like 'pushing' a roll, or cold-processing for
higher contrast. At least with digital, if you goof, you can try it
again. Screw up a roll of film, and you went out and shot it again.

Lloyd

As far as enlargers go, I like the Omega Pro Lab, 5 or 6 series, since
they're all pretty much the same. They are machines of truly great design.
They are sturdy, reliable, use simple parts and are easy to adjust and
repair. There are no bull**** extra parts. All the parts that wear out
can be replaced with stuff from any hardware store with a good
selection of parts bin.

The opposite of Omega would be something like Durst. Every part is
specialized or complex because they came out of a socialist country with
machinists nobody could fire. THe minute a product has dozens of types of
fasteners, you know the rest of the product is going to be just as stupid.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Motorola had some truly innovative
engineers who made some fairly incredible products, like their handheld
radio line. I recall some of the Radius series had no screws at all, were
easy to assemble and just as easy to take apart. They were also completely
weather sealed, which was made even easier as they didn't have any screws
to start with. Yes, they were super tough too. Simple is good, and they
really ran with this concept for a while.

Martin Eastburn wrote:

Martin - former AFRS Most of you know AFRTS when TV was added to
Radio service.


Or AFN

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMERICAN-FORCES-NETWORK-PATCH-AFN-ALASKA-FT-GREELY-1942-2001-/360756157264


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Larry Jaques wrote:

That's cool. I envy your vast knowledge/experience base. (I only made
it to half vast.) Had I wanted to go to college, I likely would have
taken both electrical and mechanical engineering courses. My parents
offered to pay the price. But I was too fed up with people, being a
hermit by nature. I chose auto mechanic tech school over college, as
machines don't talk back.


Sure they do. You can even carry on conversations with some of them.
I told more than one piece of equipment that if it didn't behave I would
scrap it for parts.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Gunner Asch wrote:

Indeed. Its brain wiring pure and simple..and everyone is wired a bit
differently.


Some are 32 bit, some 64, but there are too many two bit brains out
there. ;-)


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Cydrome Leader wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:12:04 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:32:43 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

I deviced to take apart an orignal Nikon F 35mm camera today, to see
what's inside.

About 5000 parts is the answer, for a completely mechanical 35mm camera.


WHY???!!! did you smash a Nikon F body???

They are still worth in excess of $200 each and for us
collectors..they are freaking priceless!!!

Barbarians - they break what they don't understand.

Tearing stuff apart is the greatest way to learn about how things work.

I was just thinking about other things that are just overly complex for no
reason and remembered server rail kits from Sun and especially the ones
from Sun designed by Fujitsu. They're supposed to just be rails that allow
a server to slide in and out of a 19" rack. Pretty simple, like glides for
a desk drawer. HP has it figured out, Dell took years too, and almost got
it right, but not Sun/Oracle/Fujitsu. I've still never figured out what
all the extra pieces are for, even with the installation book, and I've
not come across anybody else that has either. As to why rails need to be
highly asymmetrical from left to right is mind boggling. Even with ball
bearings, they're harder to operate than metal on metal sliders, are prone
to just falling apart and require special alignment jigs for installation,
even into industry standard racks. Plus, with no matter what you do,
you're going to get grease all over your hands. Here's a personal message
to anybody involved in those products - "you're a complete idiot".


Tektronix figured it out in the '50s & '60s. Slide an item out, lift
and remove for service. Or lock the rails and rotate the chassis to
service it in place.

It was a real joy to be able to connect to a piece of equipment from
the front of a rack, then slide it into place.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Jim Wilkins wrote:

The trouble with Chevy is they would order the tooling and test
station for that carb well in advance and then keep calling with "Oh,
by the way..." changes as they refined it.

We larded the test station for their 1970's analog ABS controller with
jumpers so they could change the test parameters themselves. While I
enjoyed flying first-class I didn't at all like Flint MI. For some
reason there weren't many passengers on those flights.

GM's project engineer was a Ph.D. from India with absolutely no
practical hands-on experience. He wanted the ramp-down curve of wheel
sensor speed accurate to 8 decimal places because that's what his
calculator gave him. No one had taught him that resistors have
tolerances.


Today, .01% are easy to get.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.