Greetings

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

OTOH, for the vast majority of users, be it word processing, CAD,
machine operator, operating an automobile, microwave, etc - knowing
the history beyond the very basic outline is not needed. As far as
keyboarding goes, all you need to know is "the layout is a legacy from
the early mechanical typewriter layouts."
Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.
Likewise, while I am attempting to learn astronomy without clocks
or telescopes, that doesn't mean when I want to look at the moon, or
Mars, I don't grab a telescope. Same for in the shop. Having used
hand tools for construction "I understand why power tools were
invented."

There is the saying that the user knows enough to accomplish the
task at hand, the expert knows all the relevant parts of the subject*;
and a scholar knows all that and the rest, too.

tschus
pyotr

*as a one time computer lab rat/monitor/ student assistant, I learned
early that a "guru" is just someone with one more trick than you.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We didn't have these sorts of problems when I was a boy,
back when snakes wore shoes and dirt was $2 a pound,
if you could find it. We had to make our own from rocks!

On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:20:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Greetings

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

OTOH, for the vast majority of users, be it word processing, CAD,
machine operator, operating an automobile, microwave, etc - knowing
the history beyond the very basic outline is not needed. As far as
keyboarding goes, all you need to know is "the layout is a legacy from
the early mechanical typewriter layouts."
Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.
Likewise, while I am attempting to learn astronomy without clocks
or telescopes, that doesn't mean when I want to look at the moon, or
Mars, I don't grab a telescope. Same for in the shop. Having used
hand tools for construction "I understand why power tools were
invented."

There is the saying that the user knows enough to accomplish the
task at hand, the expert knows all the relevant parts of the subject*;
and a scholar knows all that and the rest, too.

If you were going to be in the back seat during a dogfight, who would
you rather have in front, Saburo Sakai or an aeronautical engineering
professor?

Building the bus and driving the bus are different skills, and
excellence at one does not confer excellence at the other. This has
been an ongoing problem at most universities for decades--the math
faculty insist on trying to teach everybody how to build the bus, when
most scientists and engineers need to know how to drive it instead.

tschus
pyotr

*as a one time computer lab rat/monitor/ student assistant, I learned
early that a "guru" is just someone with one more trick than you.


tschus
pyotr

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

She might find Doug Stowe's "Wisdom of the Hands" blog interesting. He is an
advocate of educational Sloyd. Without using the formal Sloyd process I used
that approach with my sons from the time they were very young.

Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.

I took two years of "mechanical drawing" in school back in the '70s. I was
good at it... Flash forward nearly 5 decades and at best I sketch
woodworking projects out on a yellow sticky note pad, an envelope, or maybe
a piece of printer paper. My drawing board and tools seldom see daylight. I
don't use any CAD software either. This as I only need some key dimensions
and proportions and the rest I build to fit as was common in the 18th
century. My point: What design tool you use should be dependent upon the
type of projects you build, how much detail you need, how dependent you are
on machines, jigs and fixtures, and how well you can visualize how things
will go together. We are all different in that respect.

On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 23:13:28 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

She might find Doug Stowe's "Wisdom of the Hands" blog interesting. He is an
advocate of educational Sloyd. Without using the formal Sloyd process I used
that approach with my sons from the time they were very young.

Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.

I took two years of "mechanical drawing" in school back in the '70s. I was
good at it... Flash forward nearly 5 decades and at best I sketch
woodworking projects out on a yellow sticky note pad, an envelope, or maybe
a piece of printer paper. My drawing board and tools seldom see daylight. I
don't use any CAD software either. This as I only need some key dimensions
and proportions and the rest I build to fit as was common in the 18th
century. My point: What design tool you use should be dependent upon the
type of projects you build, how much detail you need, how dependent you are
on machines, jigs and fixtures, and how well you can visualize how things
will go together. We are all different in that respect.

Sometimes planning things out in too much detail leads to the
paralysis of analysis. I've got a project right now that if I had
just _done_ it would be long done, but I started drawing pictures . .
..

J. Clarke wrote:

Sometimes planning things out in too much detail leads to
the paralysis of analysis. I've got a project right now that
if I had just _done_ it would be long done, but I started
drawing pictures . . .

Indeed also build is intellectual and drawing is practical,
little by little can be a good first approach. Then you
develop your own for or routine, not set in stone hopefully,
but still, it happens quicker the 2nd and 3rd time and so on,
no doubt. And _appears_ to happen even quicker when the mind
and body relaxes...

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

On 3/1/2021 10:13 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
....
I took two years of "mechanical drawing" in school back in the '70s. I
was good at it... Flash forward nearly 5 decades and at best I sketch
woodworking projects out on a yellow sticky note pad, an envelope, or
maybe a piece of printer paper. My drawing board and tools seldom see
daylight.Â* I don't use any CAD software either. This as I only need some
key dimensions and proportions and the rest I build to fit as was common
in the 18th century.Â* My point: What design tool you use should be
dependent upon the type of projects you build, how much detail you need,
how dependent you are on machines, jigs and fixtures, and how well you
can visualize how things will go together. We are all different in that
respect.

But you have the background that is inherent now in whatever you do in
those sketches -- without that doing what you do now would not be nearly
as effective.

I only had the one semester required of NE (supposed to have been two,
but I heard they were going to cut back the requirements so I took a
chance and didn't enroll for second--I was NOT much good but I did learn
some rudiments that proved valuable for what is now getting closer to 6
decades.

--

On 3/2/2021 6:17 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Sometimes planning things out in too much detail leads to
the paralysis of analysis. I've got a project right now that
if I had just _done_ it would be long done, but I started
drawing pictures . . .

Indeed also build is intellectual and drawing is practical,
little by little can be a good first approach. Then you
develop your own for or routine, not set in stone hopefully,
but still, it happens quicker the 2nd and 3rd time and so on,
no doubt. And _appears_ to happen even quicker when the mind
and body relaxes...



Soooooo moving forward to using a computer....

Drafting, drawing on a drawing board,is wide open to mistakes. You can
draw accurately but if you wright the wrong dimension you have a massive
problem.

You can even mentally interpret how a view should be draw, and not
knowingly draw that view wrong too.

With manual drawing you have to picture the views, correctly, and then
put that on paper. Again, if you do that wrong, the drawing is wrong
and that translates to your project being wrong.

With a Program such as Sketchup you can draw in 2D or 3D and orbit
around the object you have drawn to see the different views. 99.999% of
the time if the drawing looks correct, it is correct. You have to use
the dimension tool but it fills in the distance. You know exactly at
that point if the line you just drew is correct or incorrect in length.

And mistakes or design changes are very easily and quickly changed.

J. Clarke on Mon, 01 Mar 2021 17:50:31
-0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:20:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Greetings

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

OTOH, for the vast majority of users, be it word processing, CAD,
machine operator, operating an automobile, microwave, etc - knowing
the history beyond the very basic outline is not needed. As far as
keyboarding goes, all you need to know is "the layout is a legacy from
the early mechanical typewriter layouts."
Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.
Likewise, while I am attempting to learn astronomy without clocks
or telescopes, that doesn't mean when I want to look at the moon, or
Mars, I don't grab a telescope. Same for in the shop. Having used
hand tools for construction "I understand why power tools were
invented."

There is the saying that the user knows enough to accomplish the
task at hand, the expert knows all the relevant parts of the subject*;
and a scholar knows all that and the rest, too.

If you were going to be in the back seat during a dogfight, who would
you rather have in front, Saburo Sakai or an aeronautical engineering
professor?

I want Joe "Bird Brain" von Fronkensteen. Outside of the cockpit
he's a complete, well, birdman. But because he had a bird's brain
transplanted into him, he has an innate sense of flying that puts all
humans to shame.

Go read the web comic "Chicken Wings" and tell me how much you
admire Chuck.

Building the bus and driving the bus are different skills, and
excellence at one does not confer excellence at the other. This has
been an ongoing problem at most universities for decades--the math
faculty insist on trying to teach everybody how to build the bus, when
most scientists and engineers need to know how to drive it instead.

As I said, there are "operators" who know enough to use the
machine, there are those who knows the practice and the theory behind
it, and then there is the guy who knows not only the practice and the
theory, but also all the other bits, too.

If you want to hire the button pusher, that is entirely up to you.
Just do not expect any useful feedback other than "it broke, I don't
know why."
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Us(tm) to serve as the new Them(tm)

"John Grossbohlin" on Mon, 1
Mar 2021 23:13:28 -0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

She might find Doug Stowe's "Wisdom of the Hands" blog interesting. He is an
advocate of educational Sloyd. Without using the formal Sloyd process I used
that approach with my sons from the time they were very young.

She's Montessori based.

Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.

I took two years of "mechanical drawing" in school back in the '70s. I was
good at it... Flash forward nearly 5 decades and at best I sketch
woodworking projects out on a yellow sticky note pad, an envelope, or maybe
a piece of printer paper. My drawing board and tools seldom see daylight. I
don't use any CAD software either. This as I only need some key dimensions
and proportions and the rest I build to fit as was common in the 18th
century. My point: What design tool you use should be dependent upon the
type of projects you build, how much detail you need, how dependent you are
on machines, jigs and fixtures, and how well you can visualize how things
will go together. We are all different in that respect.

I remember in one of the classes, that one is not to put
dimensions on a three-d drawing, because either the shape or the
dimensions are not correct.
OTOH, when I am 'designing' a thing, that three-D sketch gets all
sorts of dimensions added, because, well if there is any questions,
the design committee and production lead can go get a cup of coffee
and figure it out.

Part of my approach is that I am a history geek. How did this
come into existence? What was the development process? Why this way
and not that? Current 'crank' is time: "why twelve o'clock?" (It has
to do with the Roman fractional practices, and Babylonian base sixty
astronomy.)

Back in tech school, I noticed that most of the class were of the
"Do this on the machine, then the books make sense" sort while I was
one of "the book says X, ah, that's how that works on the machine"
types. (And then there are the uber geeks, who not only know how it
works 'one the machine', but how it works on the blackboard.)
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Us(tm) to serve as the new Them(tm)

"Leon" wrote in message
...

With manual drawing you have to picture the views, correctly, and then put
that on paper. Again, if you do that wrong, the drawing is wrong and that
translates to your project being wrong.

That is a good argument for drawing by hand... you've built the object
already in your head so when you move to the shop and materials it's the 2nd
time you've built it.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Sometimes planning things out in too much detail leads to the
paralysis of analysis. I've got a project right now that if I had
just _done_ it would be long done, but I started drawing pictures ...

Absolutely... Recently I've had some home renovation problems present
themselves that I spent way to much time thinking about... conjuring up all
the ways it could go wrong and myriad alternatives. Then one day I just
tackled the problem with complete success all the while asking myself why I
just didn't do it sooner! LOL

On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:22:10 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:

"Leon" wrote in message
...

With manual drawing you have to picture the views, correctly, and then put
that on paper. Again, if you do that wrong, the drawing is wrong and that
translates to your project being wrong.

That is a good argument for drawing by hand... you've built the object
already in your head so when you move to the shop and materials it's the 2nd
time you've built it.

So you have to spend more time playing 3-D chess that in the shop
doing? ;-)

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 08:18:28 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

J. Clarke on Mon, 01 Mar 2021 17:50:31
-0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:20:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Greetings

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

OTOH, for the vast majority of users, be it word processing, CAD,
machine operator, operating an automobile, microwave, etc - knowing
the history beyond the very basic outline is not needed. As far as
keyboarding goes, all you need to know is "the layout is a legacy from
the early mechanical typewriter layouts."
Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.
Likewise, while I am attempting to learn astronomy without clocks
or telescopes, that doesn't mean when I want to look at the moon, or
Mars, I don't grab a telescope. Same for in the shop. Having used
hand tools for construction "I understand why power tools were
invented."

There is the saying that the user knows enough to accomplish the
task at hand, the expert knows all the relevant parts of the subject*;
and a scholar knows all that and the rest, too.

If you were going to be in the back seat during a dogfight, who would
you rather have in front, Saburo Sakai or an aeronautical engineering
professor?

I want Joe "Bird Brain" von Fronkensteen. Outside of the cockpit
he's a complete, well, birdman. But because he had a bird's brain
transplanted into him, he has an innate sense of flying that puts all
humans to shame.

Go read the web comic "Chicken Wings" and tell me how much you
admire Chuck.

Building the bus and driving the bus are different skills, and
excellence at one does not confer excellence at the other. This has
been an ongoing problem at most universities for decades--the math
faculty insist on trying to teach everybody how to build the bus, when
most scientists and engineers need to know how to drive it instead.

As I said, there are "operators" who know enough to use the
machine, there are those who knows the practice and the theory behind
it, and then there is the guy who knows not only the practice and the
theory, but also all the other bits, too.

If you want to hire the button pusher, that is entirely up to you.
Just do not expect any useful feedback other than "it broke, I don't
know why."

So how do you retain the master engineers in button pushing jobs? I'd
think they'd get bored with it after a while.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 08:18:28 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" on Mon, 1
Mar 2021 23:13:28 -0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
. ..

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

She might find Doug Stowe's "Wisdom of the Hands" blog interesting. He is an
advocate of educational Sloyd. Without using the formal Sloyd process I used
that approach with my sons from the time they were very young.

She's Montessori based.

Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.

I took two years of "mechanical drawing" in school back in the '70s. I was
good at it... Flash forward nearly 5 decades and at best I sketch
woodworking projects out on a yellow sticky note pad, an envelope, or maybe
a piece of printer paper. My drawing board and tools seldom see daylight. I
don't use any CAD software either. This as I only need some key dimensions
and proportions and the rest I build to fit as was common in the 18th
century. My point: What design tool you use should be dependent upon the
type of projects you build, how much detail you need, how dependent you are
on machines, jigs and fixtures, and how well you can visualize how things
will go together. We are all different in that respect.

I remember in one of the classes, that one is not to put
dimensions on a three-d drawing, because either the shape or the
dimensions are not correct.

Do not _scale_ a perspective drawing makes perfect sense. But not
putting dimensions on it is another story, the only caveat I can see
is to make sure that the endpoints are absolutely clear.

OTOH, when I am 'designing' a thing, that three-D sketch gets all
sorts of dimensions added, because, well if there is any questions,
the design committee and production lead can go get a cup of coffee
and figure it out.

Part of my approach is that I am a history geek. How did this
come into existence? What was the development process? Why this way
and not that? Current 'crank' is time: "why twelve o'clock?" (It has
to do with the Roman fractional practices, and Babylonian base sixty
astronomy.)

Back in tech school, I noticed that most of the class were of the
"Do this on the machine, then the books make sense" sort while I was
one of "the book says X, ah, that's how that works on the machine"
types. (And then there are the uber geeks, who not only know how it
works 'one the machine', but how it works on the blackboard.)

"dpb" wrote in message ...

On 3/1/2021 10:13 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
...
I took two years of "mechanical drawing" in school back in the '70s. I
was good at it... Flash forward nearly 5 decades and at best I sketch
woodworking projects out on a yellow sticky note pad, an envelope, or
maybe a piece of printer paper. My drawing board and tools seldom see
daylight. I don't use any CAD software either. This as I only need some
key dimensions and proportions and the rest I build to fit as was common
in the 18th century. My point: What design tool you use should be
dependent upon the type of projects you build, how much detail you need,
how dependent you are on machines, jigs and fixtures, and how well you
can visualize how things will go together. We are all different in that
respect.

But you have the background that is inherent now in whatever you do in
those sketches -- without that doing what you do now would not be nearly as
effective.

Yes, that goes with my point. Also embedded in my point is the notion that
we are constrained by our tools.

When you use only power tools or are making many copies of a project you are
more dependent on exact measurements and exact machine work. When you design
and build a piece of furniture with a combination of power and hand tools,
and build to fit, fewer exact dimensions are needed. For example I don't
worry about making boards exactly .75 inches thick when I prep stock for a
one off project. If I'm a little fat or a little thin it doesn't matter. On
the other hand, if I were making parts for 100 of those items I really need
to get as close to .75 inches as possible. Case in point, while not of solid
wood an associate of mine made, as I recall, 175 bathrooms for a motel... He
couldn't do that economically unless every part was made to a predictable
size. I've got an upcoming renovation project where I'm going to make ash
flooring for my house... I'm using a cabinet saw, jointer, thickness planer
and shaper for that project and a power feeder. I need efficiency and
accuracy and the power feeder facilitates that.

Other things to consider in design. I can cut dovetails by hand where the
narrow ends of the pin sockets in the tail board are a saw kerf wide. That
is not something you can do with a router. I can easily cut compound angles
with a handsaw that would be very difficult to accurately make with power
tools. I can shave a few thousandths off or alter an angle with a shooting
board to attain a perfect fit, something very difficult to do with power
tools. Whereas my jointer is 8" and my floor model thickness planer is 13"
I can flatten and thickness any width I need to with hand planes.

In summery, in the context of how you design, you need to consider your
tools and skills.

John

J. Clarke on Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:55:29
-0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 08:18:28 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

J. Clarke on Mon, 01 Mar 2021 17:50:31
-0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:20:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Greetings

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

OTOH, for the vast majority of users, be it word processing, CAD,
machine operator, operating an automobile, microwave, etc - knowing
the history beyond the very basic outline is not needed. As far as
keyboarding goes, all you need to know is "the layout is a legacy from
the early mechanical typewriter layouts."
Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.
Likewise, while I am attempting to learn astronomy without clocks
or telescopes, that doesn't mean when I want to look at the moon, or
Mars, I don't grab a telescope. Same for in the shop. Having used
hand tools for construction "I understand why power tools were
invented."

There is the saying that the user knows enough to accomplish the
task at hand, the expert knows all the relevant parts of the subject*;
and a scholar knows all that and the rest, too.

If you were going to be in the back seat during a dogfight, who would
you rather have in front, Saburo Sakai or an aeronautical engineering
professor?

I want Joe "Bird Brain" von Fronkensteen. Outside of the cockpit
he's a complete, well, birdman. But because he had a bird's brain
transplanted into him, he has an innate sense of flying that puts all
humans to shame.

Go read the web comic "Chicken Wings" and tell me how much you
admire Chuck.

Building the bus and driving the bus are different skills, and
excellence at one does not confer excellence at the other. This has
been an ongoing problem at most universities for decades--the math
faculty insist on trying to teach everybody how to build the bus, when
most scientists and engineers need to know how to drive it instead.

As I said, there are "operators" who know enough to use the
machine, there are those who knows the practice and the theory behind
it, and then there is the guy who knows not only the practice and the
theory, but also all the other bits, too.

If you want to hire the button pusher, that is entirely up to you.
Just do not expect any useful feedback other than "it broke, I don't
know why."

So how do you retain the master engineers in button pushing jobs? I'd
think they'd get bored with it after a while.

Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no.
And you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a light bulb.

"John Grossbohlin" on Tue, 2
Mar 2021 13:28:38 -0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .

Sometimes planning things out in too much detail leads to the
paralysis of analysis. I've got a project right now that if I had
just _done_ it would be long done, but I started drawing pictures ...

Absolutely... Recently I've had some home renovation problems present
themselves that I spent way to much time thinking about... conjuring up all
the ways it could go wrong and myriad alternatives. Then one day I just
tackled the problem with complete success all the while asking myself why I
just didn't do it sooner! LOL

Because you had already considered a number of the possible issue
which might come up. I want a garden shed. I'm on my third or forth
iteration of "I could do it this way.,," which is a heck of a lot
cheaper than "just starting" and realizing that "I'm not sure what I
wanted, but this isn't it."

"I should have put this over there, oriented that way, then the
other could fit in that space, and I'd have this area here "clear"."
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Us(tm) to serve as the new Them(tm)

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:55:29 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 08:18:28 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

J. Clarke on Mon, 01 Mar 2021 17:50:31
-0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:20:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Greetings

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

OTOH, for the vast majority of users, be it word processing, CAD,
machine operator, operating an automobile, microwave, etc - knowing
the history beyond the very basic outline is not needed. As far as
keyboarding goes, all you need to know is "the layout is a legacy from
the early mechanical typewriter layouts."
Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.
Likewise, while I am attempting to learn astronomy without clocks
or telescopes, that doesn't mean when I want to look at the moon, or
Mars, I don't grab a telescope. Same for in the shop. Having used
hand tools for construction "I understand why power tools were
invented."

There is the saying that the user knows enough to accomplish the
task at hand, the expert knows all the relevant parts of the subject*;
and a scholar knows all that and the rest, too.

If you were going to be in the back seat during a dogfight, who would
you rather have in front, Saburo Sakai or an aeronautical engineering
professor?

I want Joe "Bird Brain" von Fronkensteen. Outside of the cockpit
he's a complete, well, birdman. But because he had a bird's brain
transplanted into him, he has an innate sense of flying that puts all
humans to shame.

Go read the web comic "Chicken Wings" and tell me how much you
admire Chuck.

Building the bus and driving the bus are different skills, and
excellence at one does not confer excellence at the other. This has
been an ongoing problem at most universities for decades--the math
faculty insist on trying to teach everybody how to build the bus, when
most scientists and engineers need to know how to drive it instead.

As I said, there are "operators" who know enough to use the
machine, there are those who knows the practice and the theory behind
it, and then there is the guy who knows not only the practice and the
theory, but also all the other bits, too.

If you want to hire the button pusher, that is entirely up to you.
Just do not expect any useful feedback other than "it broke, I don't
know why."

So how do you retain the master engineers in button pushing jobs? I'd
think they'd get bored with it after a while.

I push 104 buttons pretty much all day long. ;-) After 50 years,
yeah, sometimes I get bored with it.

on Tue, 02 Mar 2021 21:56:08 -0500 typed in
rec.woodworking the following:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:55:29 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 08:18:28 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

J. Clarke on Mon, 01 Mar 2021 17:50:31
-0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:20:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Greetings

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

OTOH, for the vast majority of users, be it word processing, CAD,
machine operator, operating an automobile, microwave, etc - knowing
the history beyond the very basic outline is not needed. As far as
keyboarding goes, all you need to know is "the layout is a legacy from
the early mechanical typewriter layouts."
Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.
Likewise, while I am attempting to learn astronomy without clocks
or telescopes, that doesn't mean when I want to look at the moon, or
Mars, I don't grab a telescope. Same for in the shop. Having used
hand tools for construction "I understand why power tools were
invented."

There is the saying that the user knows enough to accomplish the
task at hand, the expert knows all the relevant parts of the subject*;
and a scholar knows all that and the rest, too.

If you were going to be in the back seat during a dogfight, who would
you rather have in front, Saburo Sakai or an aeronautical engineering
professor?

I want Joe "Bird Brain" von Fronkensteen. Outside of the cockpit
he's a complete, well, birdman. But because he had a bird's brain
transplanted into him, he has an innate sense of flying that puts all
humans to shame.

Go read the web comic "Chicken Wings" and tell me how much you
admire Chuck.

Building the bus and driving the bus are different skills, and
excellence at one does not confer excellence at the other. This has
been an ongoing problem at most universities for decades--the math
faculty insist on trying to teach everybody how to build the bus, when
most scientists and engineers need to know how to drive it instead.

As I said, there are "operators" who know enough to use the
machine, there are those who knows the practice and the theory behind
it, and then there is the guy who knows not only the practice and the
theory, but also all the other bits, too.

If you want to hire the button pusher, that is entirely up to you.
Just do not expect any useful feedback other than "it broke, I don't
know why."

So how do you retain the master engineers in button pushing jobs? I'd
think they'd get bored with it after a while.

I push 104 buttons pretty much all day long. ;-) After 50 years,
yeah, sometimes I get bored with it.

How he functions, I've given up caring.

He apparently can't tell the difference between someone who only
knows how to "push the button" from someone who understands what
happens, and why. "All the science [he] don't understand, it's just
his job, five days a week."


--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Us(tm) to serve as the new Them(tm)

On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 10:18:01 AM UTC-5, pyotr filipivich wrote:
on Tue, 02 Mar 2021 21:56:08 -0500 typed in
rec.woodworking the following:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:55:29 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 08:18:28 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

J. Clarke on Mon, 01 Mar 2021 17:50:31
-0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:20:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Greetings

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

OTOH, for the vast majority of users, be it word processing, CAD,
machine operator, operating an automobile, microwave, etc - knowing
the history beyond the very basic outline is not needed. As far as
keyboarding goes, all you need to know is "the layout is a legacy from
the early mechanical typewriter layouts."
Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.
Likewise, while I am attempting to learn astronomy without clocks
or telescopes, that doesn't mean when I want to look at the moon, or
Mars, I don't grab a telescope. Same for in the shop. Having used
hand tools for construction "I understand why power tools were
invented."

There is the saying that the user knows enough to accomplish the
task at hand, the expert knows all the relevant parts of the subject*;
and a scholar knows all that and the rest, too.

If you were going to be in the back seat during a dogfight, who would
you rather have in front, Saburo Sakai or an aeronautical engineering
professor?

I want Joe "Bird Brain" von Fronkensteen. Outside of the cockpit
he's a complete, well, birdman. But because he had a bird's brain
transplanted into him, he has an innate sense of flying that puts all
humans to shame.

Go read the web comic "Chicken Wings" and tell me how much you
admire Chuck.

Building the bus and driving the bus are different skills, and
excellence at one does not confer excellence at the other. This has
been an ongoing problem at most universities for decades--the math
faculty insist on trying to teach everybody how to build the bus, when
most scientists and engineers need to know how to drive it instead.

As I said, there are "operators" who know enough to use the
machine, there are those who knows the practice and the theory behind
it, and then there is the guy who knows not only the practice and the
theory, but also all the other bits, too.

If you want to hire the button pusher, that is entirely up to you.
Just do not expect any useful feedback other than "it broke, I don't
know why."

So how do you retain the master engineers in button pushing jobs? I'd
think they'd get bored with it after a while.

I push 104 buttons pretty much all day long. ;-) After 50 years,
yeah, sometimes I get bored with it.
How he functions, I've given up caring.

He apparently can't tell the difference between someone who only
knows how to "push the button" from someone who understands what
happens, and why. "All the science [he] don't understand, it's just
his job, five days a week."

Rocket man, burning down the street with people on.
Rocket man, Bernie Taupin sleeps with everyone.
Rocket man, breathing all these fumes all everlong
Rocket man, bringing home a ham and provolone
Rocket man, Burning out this useless telephone

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Because you had already considered a number of the possible
issue which might come up. I want a garden shed. I'm on my
third or forth iteration of "I could do it this way.,,"
which is a heck of a lot cheaper than "just starting" and
realizing that "I'm not sure what I wanted, but this
isn't it."

"I should have put this over there, oriented that way, then
the other could fit in that space, and I'd have this area
here "clear"."

Some people like to plan and some people like to act.
Only planning, never doing anything, or only doing things on
instinct - those extremes I think are bad, but anything in
between is up for anyone to make up their own mix, and with
time and experience most people seem to land somewhere that
works for them.

BTW, if you draw a drawing according to formal methods and
with proper tools, does that count as planning or
effectuating? To me it sounds almost like doing stuff which is
what I prefer...

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Emanuel Berg on Thu, 04 Mar 2021 03:10:55 +0100
typed in rec.woodworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Because you had already considered a number of the possible
issue which might come up. I want a garden shed. I'm on my
third or forth iteration of "I could do it this way.,,"
which is a heck of a lot cheaper than "just starting" and
realizing that "I'm not sure what I wanted, but this
isn't it."

"I should have put this over there, oriented that way, then
the other could fit in that space, and I'd have this area
here "clear"."

Some people like to plan and some people like to act.
Only planning, never doing anything, or only doing things on
instinct - those extremes I think are bad, but anything in
between is up for anyone to make up their own mix, and with
time and experience most people seem to land somewhere that
works for them.

And there it is. The people who like to plan, wind up in the
design department, making detailed formal drawings as "needed." Others
are better at visualizing the component elements and can hold all that
in their head and not need any of these new fangled drawings.

BTW, if you draw a drawing according to formal methods and
with proper tools, does that count as planning or
effectuating? To me it sounds almost like doing stuff which is
what I prefer...

We're back to the questions of "who is this drawing for?" and
"for what purpose is it made?" For example, last night I took the
measurements of a student desk I thought to use for something else.
First question "Will it fit the space?" after that came the sketch
which is three, four lines, only vaguely like the actual shape of the
thing. With the measurements "slapped" on. _I_ could build it, but
then I know what I want, etc,etc,etc.
If, however, I want to have some one else do it, I will need to be
much more specific in my drawing, but I do not need all the "formal"
methodology, including the title block and blah, blah.
On the gripping hand, if I want to go into production (start a
company), I will need to have a full set of Orthogonal Drawing in the
Standard Projections, with indication of whether first or third order
perspective used, materials used, and any details "not obvious" called
out or indicated on the drawing.
Realize that some where in the files of the Everbilt Company, is a
set of drawings specifying the dimensions of a "1/4 inch washer". Most
likely drawn with dimensions A, B, C, with a table of size dimensions
(width, thickness, hole size) and material options (Brass, Stainless
steel, 'steel', etc, etc etc.)

All that is a long way of saying, some times a drawing just needs
to have general shape and overall dimensions, some times you get out
the drafting kit "just because" you want a precise drawing of the
thing.
And we're back to one of my hobby horses, "how precise is enough?"
If I'm painting a room, do I need to know that wall is 365.8 cm long,
or will 3 1/2 meters do? Does _this_ drawing have to be "to scale" or
"exact shape", or is 'close enough' sufficient.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Us(tm) to serve as the new Them(tm)

On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 07:56:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Emanuel Berg on Thu, 04 Mar 2021 03:10:55 +0100
typed in rec.woodworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Because you had already considered a number of the possible
issue which might come up. I want a garden shed. I'm on my
third or forth iteration of "I could do it this way.,,"
which is a heck of a lot cheaper than "just starting" and
realizing that "I'm not sure what I wanted, but this
isn't it."

"I should have put this over there, oriented that way, then
the other could fit in that space, and I'd have this area
here "clear"."

Some people like to plan and some people like to act.
Only planning, never doing anything, or only doing things on
instinct - those extremes I think are bad, but anything in
between is up for anyone to make up their own mix, and with
time and experience most people seem to land somewhere that
works for them.

And there it is. The people who like to plan, wind up in the
design department, making detailed formal drawings as "needed." Others
are better at visualizing the component elements and can hold all that
in their head and not need any of these new fangled drawings.

BTW, if you draw a drawing according to formal methods and
with proper tools, does that count as planning or
effectuating? To me it sounds almost like doing stuff which is
what I prefer...

We're back to the questions of "who is this drawing for?" and
"for what purpose is it made?" For example, last night I took the
measurements of a student desk I thought to use for something else.
First question "Will it fit the space?" after that came the sketch
which is three, four lines, only vaguely like the actual shape of the
thing. With the measurements "slapped" on. _I_ could build it, but
then I know what I want, etc,etc,etc.
If, however, I want to have some one else do it, I will need to be
much more specific in my drawing, but I do not need all the "formal"
methodology, including the title block and blah, blah.
On the gripping hand, if I want to go into production (start a
company), I will need to have a full set of Orthogonal Drawing in the
Standard Projections, with indication of whether first or third order
perspective used, materials used, and any details "not obvious" called
out or indicated on the drawing.
Realize that some where in the files of the Everbilt Company, is a
set of drawings specifying the dimensions of a "1/4 inch washer". Most
likely drawn with dimensions A, B, C, with a table of size dimensions
(width, thickness, hole size) and material options (Brass, Stainless
steel, 'steel', etc, etc etc.)

All that is a long way of saying, some times a drawing just needs
to have general shape and overall dimensions, some times you get out
the drafting kit "just because" you want a precise drawing of the
thing.
And we're back to one of my hobby horses, "how precise is enough?"
If I'm painting a room, do I need to know that wall is 365.8 cm long,
or will 3 1/2 meters do? Does _this_ drawing have to be "to scale" or
"exact shape", or is 'close enough' sufficient.
It's nice to know if all your parts can be made from the material at
hand, and that the various parts will fit together properly before the
"oh ****" when you have to go buy more material and start over -
particularly in these times when material prices are SO inflated.
A "decent" dimensioned drawing helps figure these things out - even
if it is not "accurately to scale". I'd call it a "dimensioned
assembly drawing" with the dimensions and locations of things like
dados and rabbets clearly located and dimensioned - edge clearances
determined, etc. That doesn't need autocad or a fancy frafting machine
but a good scale / ruler etc IS handy - IOW - not just a "sketch" on a
napkin or box-top.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 07:56:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Emanuel Berg on Thu, 04 Mar 2021 03:10:55 +0100
typed in rec.woodworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Because you had already considered a number of the possible
issue which might come up. I want a garden shed. I'm on my
third or forth iteration of "I could do it this way.,,"
which is a heck of a lot cheaper than "just starting" and
realizing that "I'm not sure what I wanted, but this
isn't it."

"I should have put this over there, oriented that way, then
the other could fit in that space, and I'd have this area
here "clear"."

Some people like to plan and some people like to act.
Only planning, never doing anything, or only doing things on
instinct - those extremes I think are bad, but anything in
between is up for anyone to make up their own mix, and with
time and experience most people seem to land somewhere that
works for them.

And there it is. The people who like to plan, wind up in the
design department, making detailed formal drawings as "needed." Others
are better at visualizing the component elements and can hold all that
in their head and not need any of these new fangled drawings.

How many engineers build what they're designing? Architects? How many
machinists build a part without detailed drawings of what they're
making?

BTW, if you draw a drawing according to formal methods and
with proper tools, does that count as planning or
effectuating? To me it sounds almost like doing stuff which is
what I prefer...

We're back to the questions of "who is this drawing for?" and
"for what purpose is it made?" For example, last night I took the
measurements of a student desk I thought to use for something else.
First question "Will it fit the space?" after that came the sketch
which is three, four lines, only vaguely like the actual shape of the
thing. With the measurements "slapped" on. _I_ could build it, but
then I know what I want, etc,etc,etc.

Trivial example.

If, however, I want to have some one else do it, I will need to be
much more specific in my drawing, but I do not need all the "formal"
methodology, including the title block and blah, blah.

Fitting a desk into a room?

On the gripping hand, if I want to go into production (start a
company), I will need to have a full set of Orthogonal Drawing in the
Standard Projections, with indication of whether first or third order
perspective used, materials used, and any details "not obvious" called
out or indicated on the drawing.

Are you now arguing that drafting is no longer needed?

Realize that some where in the files of the Everbilt Company, is a
set of drawings specifying the dimensions of a "1/4 inch washer". Most
likely drawn with dimensions A, B, C, with a table of size dimensions
(width, thickness, hole size) and material options (Brass, Stainless
steel, 'steel', etc, etc etc.)

There are standards for such things. If you don't like standards,
just pull out the McMaster-Carr catalog.

All that is a long way of saying, some times a drawing just needs
to have general shape and overall dimensions, some times you get out
the drafting kit "just because" you want a precise drawing of the
thing.

"Drafting kit" = 3-D modeling

And we're back to one of my hobby horses, "how precise is enough?"
If I'm painting a room, do I need to know that wall is 365.8 cm long,
or will 3 1/2 meters do? Does _this_ drawing have to be "to scale" or
"exact shape", or is 'close enough' sufficient.

What does this have to do with the price of oats in China? If I'm
painting a room, I start with, oh, about that many gallons. If I
guessed too little, it's only a trip to the paint store. If I bought
too much, well, there's always another room. I don't measure or draw
*anything*.

Clare Snyder on Thu, 04 Mar 2021 11:46:10 -0500
typed in rec.woodworking the following:

All that is a long way of saying, some times a drawing just needs
to have general shape and overall dimensions, some times you get out
the drafting kit "just because" you want a precise drawing of the
thing.
And we're back to one of my hobby horses, "how precise is enough?"
If I'm painting a room, do I need to know that wall is 365.8 cm long,
or will 3 1/2 meters do? Does _this_ drawing have to be "to scale" or
"exact shape", or is 'close enough' sufficient.
It's nice to know if all your parts can be made from the material at
hand, and that the various parts will fit together properly before the
"oh ****" when you have to go buy more material and start over -
particularly in these times when material prices are SO inflated.
A "decent" dimensioned drawing helps figure these things out - even
if it is not "accurately to scale". I'd call it a "dimensioned
assembly drawing" with the dimensions and locations of things like
dados and rabbets clearly located and dimensioned - edge clearances
determined, etc. That doesn't need autocad or a fancy frafting machine
but a good scale / ruler etc IS handy - IOW - not just a "sketch" on a
napkin or box-top.

Exactly - "If it works, it ain't stupid."
I've done overly produced drawings for stuff mostly because I had
the time (and in the one case, I wasn't going to get to the making
till _after_ the rainy season ended.) But as you said "decently
dimensioned". And when you're the design department and the shop
lead, it is easier to just 'wing it'. "Let it flow organically." (I
was reorganizing the front room into a more better 'office space'. and
actually heard myself say "Okay, those shelves there, then this here
and then we'll see how the rest flows organically. Did I just say
'flows organically'?")


--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Us(tm) to serve as the new Them(tm)

on Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:28:16 -0500 typed in
rec.woodworking the following:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 07:56:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Emanuel Berg on Thu, 04 Mar 2021 03:10:55 +0100
typed in rec.woodworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Because you had already considered a number of the possible
issue which might come up. I want a garden shed. I'm on my
third or forth iteration of "I could do it this way.,,"
which is a heck of a lot cheaper than "just starting" and
realizing that "I'm not sure what I wanted, but this
isn't it."

"I should have put this over there, oriented that way, then
the other could fit in that space, and I'd have this area
here "clear"."

Some people like to plan and some people like to act.
Only planning, never doing anything, or only doing things on
instinct - those extremes I think are bad, but anything in
between is up for anyone to make up their own mix, and with
time and experience most people seem to land somewhere that
works for them.

And there it is. The people who like to plan, wind up in the
design department, making detailed formal drawings as "needed." Others
are better at visualizing the component elements and can hold all that
in their head and not need any of these new fangled drawings.

How many engineers build what they're designing? Architects? How many
machinists build a part without detailed drawings of what they're
making?

BTW, if you draw a drawing according to formal methods and
with proper tools, does that count as planning or
effectuating? To me it sounds almost like doing stuff which is
what I prefer...

We're back to the questions of "who is this drawing for?" and
"for what purpose is it made?" For example, last night I took the
measurements of a student desk I thought to use for something else.
First question "Will it fit the space?" after that came the sketch
which is three, four lines, only vaguely like the actual shape of the
thing. With the measurements "slapped" on. _I_ could build it, but
then I know what I want, etc,etc,etc.

Trivial example.

If, however, I want to have some one else do it, I will need to be
much more specific in my drawing, but I do not need all the "formal"
methodology, including the title block and blah, blah.

Fitting a desk into a room?

On the gripping hand, if I want to go into production (start a
company), I will need to have a full set of Orthogonal Drawing in the
Standard Projections, with indication of whether first or third order
perspective used, materials used, and any details "not obvious" called
out or indicated on the drawing.

Are you now arguing that drafting is no longer needed?

Realize that some where in the files of the Everbilt Company, is a
set of drawings specifying the dimensions of a "1/4 inch washer". Most
likely drawn with dimensions A, B, C, with a table of size dimensions
(width, thickness, hole size) and material options (Brass, Stainless
steel, 'steel', etc, etc etc.)

There are standards for such things. If you don't like standards,
just pull out the McMaster-Carr catalog.

All that is a long way of saying, some times a drawing just needs
to have general shape and overall dimensions, some times you get out
the drafting kit "just because" you want a precise drawing of the
thing.

"Drafting kit" = 3-D modeling

And we're back to one of my hobby horses, "how precise is enough?"
If I'm painting a room, do I need to know that wall is 365.8 cm long,
or will 3 1/2 meters do? Does _this_ drawing have to be "to scale" or
"exact shape", or is 'close enough' sufficient.

What does this have to do with the price of oats in China? If I'm
painting a room, I start with, oh, about that many gallons. If I
guessed too little, it's only a trip to the paint store. If I bought
too much, well, there's always another room. I don't measure or draw
*anything*.

I realize that one does not need to know about whatshisnames
experiments into latent heat in order to make coffee; nor does one
need to does not need to know about Leo Baekeland and his invention in
order to in order to use a Kerug pod. Neither are you required to
know the role of romantic entanglements which lead to the
establishment of British coffee plantations in Jamaica. One simply
has to know "Go to the cupboard, get the box!"

I mean, is it really necessary to understand how credit in the
early 15th century lead to the development of GPS, Cell phones and
SpaceX in order to place a call? No.

But it is still a cool subject to look into.
--
pyotr filipivich
"I made it to 2013 and all I got from the SciFi Books of my youth
was the lousy dystopian government"

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:07:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

on Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:28:16 -0500 typed in
rec.woodworking the following:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2021 07:56:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Emanuel Berg on Thu, 04 Mar 2021 03:10:55 +0100
typed in rec.woodworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Because you had already considered a number of the possible
issue which might come up. I want a garden shed. I'm on my
third or forth iteration of "I could do it this way.,,"
which is a heck of a lot cheaper than "just starting" and
realizing that "I'm not sure what I wanted, but this
isn't it."

"I should have put this over there, oriented that way, then
the other could fit in that space, and I'd have this area
here "clear"."

Some people like to plan and some people like to act.
Only planning, never doing anything, or only doing things on
instinct - those extremes I think are bad, but anything in
between is up for anyone to make up their own mix, and with
time and experience most people seem to land somewhere that
works for them.

And there it is. The people who like to plan, wind up in the
design department, making detailed formal drawings as "needed." Others
are better at visualizing the component elements and can hold all that
in their head and not need any of these new fangled drawings.

How many engineers build what they're designing? Architects? How many
machinists build a part without detailed drawings of what they're
making?

BTW, if you draw a drawing according to formal methods and
with proper tools, does that count as planning or
effectuating? To me it sounds almost like doing stuff which is
what I prefer...

We're back to the questions of "who is this drawing for?" and
"for what purpose is it made?" For example, last night I took the
measurements of a student desk I thought to use for something else.
First question "Will it fit the space?" after that came the sketch
which is three, four lines, only vaguely like the actual shape of the
thing. With the measurements "slapped" on. _I_ could build it, but
then I know what I want, etc,etc,etc.

Trivial example.

If, however, I want to have some one else do it, I will need to be
much more specific in my drawing, but I do not need all the "formal"
methodology, including the title block and blah, blah.

Fitting a desk into a room?

On the gripping hand, if I want to go into production (start a
company), I will need to have a full set of Orthogonal Drawing in the
Standard Projections, with indication of whether first or third order
perspective used, materials used, and any details "not obvious" called
out or indicated on the drawing.

Are you now arguing that drafting is no longer needed?

Realize that some where in the files of the Everbilt Company, is a
set of drawings specifying the dimensions of a "1/4 inch washer". Most
likely drawn with dimensions A, B, C, with a table of size dimensions
(width, thickness, hole size) and material options (Brass, Stainless
steel, 'steel', etc, etc etc.)

There are standards for such things. If you don't like standards,
just pull out the McMaster-Carr catalog.

All that is a long way of saying, some times a drawing just needs
to have general shape and overall dimensions, some times you get out
the drafting kit "just because" you want a precise drawing of the
thing.

"Drafting kit" = 3-D modeling

And we're back to one of my hobby horses, "how precise is enough?"
If I'm painting a room, do I need to know that wall is 365.8 cm long,
or will 3 1/2 meters do? Does _this_ drawing have to be "to scale" or
"exact shape", or is 'close enough' sufficient.

What does this have to do with the price of oats in China? If I'm
painting a room, I start with, oh, about that many gallons. If I
guessed too little, it's only a trip to the paint store. If I bought
too much, well, there's always another room. I don't measure or draw
*anything*.

I realize that one does not need to know about whatshisnames
experiments into latent heat in order to make coffee; nor does one
need to does not need to know about Leo Baekeland and his invention in
order to in order to use a Kerug pod. Neither are you required to
know the role of romantic entanglements which lead to the
establishment of British coffee plantations in Jamaica. One simply
has to know "Go to the cupboard, get the box!"

I mean, is it really necessary to understand how credit in the
early 15th century lead to the development of GPS, Cell phones and
SpaceX in order to place a call? No.

But it is still a cool subject to look into.

You make no sense but communication, quite obviously, wasn't your
intention.