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.

There were easily hundreds of screws, mostly of differnt types and clearly
no concept of standardized parts.

I took the rest apart with a hammer and pliers. The magnesium? body was
pretty brittle so the hammer worked great.

The thing was clearly overly complex for what it does, cleary not designed
to be easily serviced, and clearly built to use as many different
components and specialized tools as needed.

Does anybody know if these were designed to simply create lots of busy
work for people? I think the basic design was from the late 1950s this
this particular one being made in the early 1970s.

I've seem some German rifles that were made this way too, with as many
parts as possible crammed in, none of which were even truly needed.

What's the deal with this? When did this rediculous fad finally go away?

Old VCRs used to be overly built the same way with too many mechanical
parts.

Has anybody come across any other products, new or old that just appear to
be some sort of socialist work program, and not about making a machine
that works, at a reasonable price and that can be easily serviced?

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!!!


"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 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?

On Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:48:26 PM UTC-7, 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?


To sell replacement parts, to make sure very few people besides OEM can properly repair.

jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:48:26 PM UTC-7, 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?


To sell replacement parts, to make sure very few people besides OEM can properly repair.

I did notice that to get to the self timer, you're supposed to peel off
and throw away the fake leather skin, because of course there's screws
under there. That reminds me of screws under lables and bezels you can't
replace in new equipment.

Oh, and to clean the escapement, you need to do the same thing and
basically take the ENTIRE thing apart. Even if the parts were free, the
amount of labor required is just senseless.

I also destroy-explored a Sears branded Mamiya 35mm camera to figure out
how to get to the escapement. Those jackasses really love their random
English threaded parts for no reason. This was a mid to late 1970s
product.

The part count in the Mamiya seemed way lower than the Nikon F, plus it's
a more advanced camera to start with. There was a chain driven mechanism
to transfer "information" from one side of the camera body to the other. I
guess they get points for something that crazy to make it all work.

Canon FD lenses are an incomprehensible mess of parts. Never been able to
get one of those back together again, ever.

Personally, I find things like padlocks and those throw away type pliers
made of stamped sheet metal brilliant. They're effective and just can't
get any more simple.

I'm actually sort of surpised Knipex adjustable pliers don't have 450
parts like cams, roller bearings, timing wheels, adjustable guides, set
screws holding locking pins and other weird rube goldberg type stuff in
true German spirit.

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

--
Steve W.

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.

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

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 ---

On 9/22/2014 11:27 PM, DoN. Nichols wrote:
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.

I now have a Fujji camera that uses my old F lenses and new modern
electronic lenses from Nikon. And mine runs on AA cells.
Martin

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/



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

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




"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.

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

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.

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.

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


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

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:44:13 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

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.

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

Hear Hear!!!

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

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!"


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

On Monday, September 22, 2014 2:44:13 PM UTC+2, Larry Jaques wrote:
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.


I don't think this was the case. It seemed that the company was paying for the displays. The boss just liked to see lots of fasteners, necessary or not.

"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.

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.
-jsw

"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."

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.


-jsw

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

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

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.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott fired this volley in
:

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.


Dirt-simple solutions are the epitomy of engineering. It's hard to get
to that point.

I just spent two years of my life designing (and building) a prototype
machine for an explosives manufacturer. Some of the most difficult
aspects of its operation were solve by those dirt-simple mechanisms
invented in the 1920s and 1930s. Some others required complex mechanisms
I'm not totally pleased with, but must endure, because there seemed no
other way to accomplish them.

To be sure, it is a complex machine, full of potential failure points.
Mitigating them required "over-engineering" to make those points robust
enough to stand the duty. When complex overcomes simple, that's the
cost.

I'm not sure any complex machine (like a mechanical camera with 47
functions!) can be made simply.

Lloyd

"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 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.

Witness the actions of the Democrat party towards the economy over
the last forty years.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Sunday, September 21, 2014 10:59:42 PM UTC-7, 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.



Witness the actions of the Democrat party towards the economy over

the last forty years.

--

pyotr filipivich

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


Note how this asshole is attempting to take a thread that's not political and make it political.

The reason he's doing it is to save face for Mark Wieber.

**** off and die, Filipivich

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".

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.



"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 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".

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

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.

"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?

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

Any competent draftsman can design complexity, simplicity requires
inspired genius.

-jsw

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:19:28 -0400, "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?

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

Any competent draftsman can design complexity, simplicity requires
inspired genius.

-jsw

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

--
Ed Huntress

"Jim Wilkins" on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:19:28
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"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?

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

Any competent draftsman can design complexity, simplicity requires
inspired genius.

You know when your design is complete - not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is mottling left to take away.

OTOH, rarely are products "completed" so much as the designers run
out of time to make any improvements or changes.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

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 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.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Cydrome Leader wrote:
[grumble...]


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.

So did HP. My early-70's 8555A spectrum analyzer is a masterpiece of
both electronic and mechanical design. It even has a Magic Crystal for
a heart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YIG_sphere

Then they lost their way on the scopes with keypads and a single
control dial that took two minutes to change any setting. I have one
because it sold cheap but much preferred their Infinium with separate
knobs for each function.
-jsw

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:59:42 -0700, 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.

True..sadly. "Couldnt take one apart and put it back together again
so it was obviously junk"

Funny that shops did it all the time on the rare event such things
needed adjustment or fixing.

Now try taking a Canon EOS apart without a complete high tech computer
repair department. Well..there always is..simply dropping it on the
pavement.

I was starting to wonder if the lad was simply having a go with us..or
is that...lame.





Witness the actions of the Democrat party towards the economy over
the last forty years.

Very well stated! Bravo!!


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

"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 Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:59:42 -0700, 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.

True..sadly. "Couldnt take one apart and put it back together again
so it was obviously junk"

Funny that shops did it all the time on the rare event such things
needed adjustment or fixing.

Now try taking a Canon EOS apart without a complete high tech computer
repair department. Well..there always is..simply dropping it on the
pavement.

I was starting to wonder if the lad was simply having a go with us..or
is that...lame.


Witness the actions of the Democrat party towards the economy over
the last forty years.

Very well stated! Bravo!!


My Fuji Finepix S5200 digital camera needs a new memory battery. It
is tiny coin cell with welded tabs that is solder to one of the many
circuit boards. The manual only list the inventory number, and no
standard battery will fit in the small space.


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

On 9/21/2014 10:12 PM, 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!!!


"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



I've got a boatload of Canon 35mm if interested.