[TheForge] Another Long rambley YAK

[Jerry Frost]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Vida" <osan@netlabs.net>
To: <theforge@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [TheForge] Another Long rambley YAK


>
>
> Jerry Frost wrote:
>
>
> 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.
> >

The fundamental difference in programming is it's additive. Machining being
subtractive, if you make a mistake you can't put it back. An additive
process on the other hand means you can simply cover a mistake with more
stuff call it a "patch". <grin> In the "good old days" when memory was
limited software had to be well thought out and compact, now with virtually
unlimited memory we get bloatware.

All too often we see engineers design as an additive craft.

>
> > 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.
>

I might argue for Archimedes. Recent archaeological finds include a copy of
one of his fabled books and in it is found a pretty advanced form of
calculus. Similar methods though.

>
>
> >
> > 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.
>

I didn't invent this method of mitering, Dad showed me but I didn't really
start putting it to use till I worked on my first log home. (not my home, my
first experience building one) It's been around since Egypt and Messopotamia
were budding technological super powers.

>
> > 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.

Agreed.

> >
> > 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.
>

I haven't seen either set of plans so I may be blowing smoke. If so I
appologize in advance. The impression I get is it's a bolt together design
you can weld instead if you wish. This is not the same as a device designed
to be welded from the start.

> 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.
>

I agree, in function the grasshopper appeals to me more than any other
design. My opinion being only this: it can be simplified quite a bit without
losing function nor flexibility.

I'm not going to restate this opinion again until I have a chance to build
my version and illustrate what I mean. I don't wish Bruce or anyone taking
my opinion as a criticism.

Frosty
------------------------
If it ain't forged
it ain't real.
Wrought iron is.
The FrostWorks

Meadow Lakes, AK.