[TheForge] Another Long rambley YAK

[Andy Vida]

Jerry Frost wrote:

> I too tend to "overthink" projects.

	Over-analysis can be problematic.

> However I've, on average, been very well
> served by putting as much work as possible into the front end of a
> project.

	This is the "right" way to do it.  My clients still don't
	get it, by and large.  They will pay the concept lip service
	but fail to belly-up when it comes to placing money where
	mouth previously resided.  I think people often are far more
	in love with ideas than the reality of what is required to
	put them into practice.  A common enough failing.

	Last year's client blew about $45M on a project that could
	have resulted in perhaps half an order of magnitude better
	result at perhaps 1/3 that cost had they listened to what I
	and several other consultants were telling them.   Such is
	life. :)

> Usually once I start cutting material I don't hit the 90/90 rule. (The first
> half of a project takes 90% of the time and money and the last half takes
> the other 90% of the time and money)

	Hee hee... another common phenomenon.  It's just like running
	a lathe.  90% of the work lies in the setup.  The rest is
	mainly busy work.  In machine work one cannot really do things
	too terribly wrong and still achieve an acceptable result. The
	tighter the tolerances, the truer this becomes.  The realities
	of physical existence constrain you.  In software, those rules
	are far looser and tolerances are far more difficult to express
	in terms of not only precision (the far easier aspect) but in
	those of quality (character).  This is still a black art that
	few people have mastered.  Even I have trouble with it on a
	regular basis.  The fact that one can get away with so much
	hanky panky is a clear symptom of insufficient blueprinting in
	any endeavor.
> 
> Probably my biggest weakness (Go ahead &E take a shot <grin>) is math,

	That can be cured to a degree, though.  The key is finding
	the right "paradigm" (a sadly trite term these days) that
	speaks to you in terms you can relate to.  The manner in
	which mathematical concepts are related to a pupil often
	makes the difference between success and failure.  The
	highly dry and technical expressions pursuant to the 
	"purely scientific" icon is usually fit for only the most
	mathematically inclined students, and even not for them in
	some cases.  Relating a math concept to something in the
	real world to which the pupil can map to is one of the
	greatest and most effective means of cementing that concept
	correctly in their minds.  There is no single "right" way
	to teach such things.  Here the public schools fail with
	abject misery, though it cannot readily be pinned on a
	teacher that has to see 152 students a day.  Imagine having
	to come up, in the worst case, with 152 different lessons
	daily for each student.  It would be an impossible task.

> My compensation on the other hand is visualization; I see mechanisms,
> structures, stress, etc. in my minds eye.

	the best place to see them.  Nikola Tesla is arguably the
	greatest technical genius thus far in human history. Forget
	Einstein and his group, great as they were.  Tesla was able
	to put his visions into reality, and though he was an able
	mathematician, his ideas were the product of pure intuition
	and inner vision.  This is the fount of genius and greatness,
	not mere math ability.  The scary thing is that the tools
	appear to be mistaken as the source of genius these days.
	They are only a means.  Necessary for many ends, mind you, but
	not sufficient for achieving them.


> Another example is the scotch yoke I reinvented. Far from being ashamed I'm
> pretty proud of coming up with the idea. What has me slapping my head though
> is how much time I spent reinventing the thing instead of just reading about
> it and adapting it to what I need. <sigh>

	A long time ago I came to the realization that any man that
	wishes to know something, and I mean REALLY know it, must
	reinvent the wheel.  Doesn't matter which wheel, choose any
	that interests you.  Reinventing that wheel imparts a brand
	of insight in to the mysterious workings of this universe
	in a form that our minds are able to wrap themselves around.
	I am not sure that anyone in human form, using human logic,
	reason, and intellect can peer up the butthole of the galaxies
	and understand them in the base terms of this universe.  I
	suspect that our understanding of such things can only be in
	terms fit to our nature.  I further suspect that this is so
	for any one of several possible reasons.  I believe that 
	existence, much more so life, is a dance and a game.  We are
	limited in our capabilities in order to make the game and
	interesting and the dance challenging.  I don't want to know
	the deepest darkest secrets of the galaxies.  That sense of
	mystery is the one thing I can count on to keep it interesting
	and worth pursuing.  Were "god" to pop out from behind my
	refrigerator and offer up to me THE secret of it all, I would
	have to refuse because I know in my heart of hearts that once
	I knew those things I would have no more reason to live.  It
	will have all become mundane and eventually boring to me and
	for me the greatest vision of hell, far beyond the pale and
	timid imaginings of Dant�, is simple boredom.  Existence without
	mystery is, at least for me, the worst fate any being could
	ever be damned to endure.
	
> 
> Another prime example of not being able to do the math not slowing me down
> much is mitering pipe. I have wrap arounds and sometimes even look at the
> marks for mitering. However I don't use them, I first (straight) cut the
> pipe at the angle I want, then lay it against the other pipe and mark the
> trim cut with dividers. It takes some practice and wastes a little bit of
> pipe (the radius of the pipe being trimmed) but it's fast and accurate.
> 

	Intuitive genius is the best sort.  In fact, I suspect it's
	really the only sort.  Look at how intuitive the great math
	geniuses of the world have been, by and large.  The basic 
	ideas of many of the most fundamental concepts did not arise
	as consequences of logic and reason (though many have as well),
	but rather arose from a place that I suspect nobody knows the
	name of.

> Here's a good example of our different perspectives. To my eye your design
> of the Grasshopper is more complicated than necessary. The reason in large
> part is your "no weld" philosophy. It's my experience more people own a
> welder than a drill press. More importantly, more people can weld than
> layout and drill holes accurately .

	Here I must agree, but Bruce likes delving into "what if"
	land a lot, and I do seriously appreciate this quality.
> 
> I wouldn't attempt a Grasshopper linkage without a drill press due to it's
> low tolerance nature. However building the entire hammer to close tolerance
> as a bolt together unit is too daunting for most folk, I certainly wouldn't
> given an alternative\
	
	This is my objection to the basic concept.  As an intellectual
	exercise I find this a very worthy pursuit.  As a practical
	pursuit, I'm less convinced, but you never know who may decide
	this is perfect for them.
> 
> I don't make any claim for superiority of method except for ease of
> construction (in this case). I sincerely believe there'd be grasshopper
> hammers all over the place if you offered plans for a welded design.

	He does. :)  I think he wants $20, but don't quote me on that.

	For the record, the design is superb.  Bruce put a lot of
	thought into it and I used the original hammer many times
	and plan on stealing it one day.  It really is that good.
	true straight line motion, an enormously adjustable stroke,
	provisions for top and bottom tooling coupled with the
	ability to achieve and maintain precise alignment, and a
	rather deep throat.  I don't think you can beat it.  The
	only thing I might add would be an air cylinder valved
	like a kickass.  I think you'd have the perfect air powered
	"treadle" hammer.