- Status
User1
Guest
Certainly the future cannot be seen with obsolete philosophies! to design something you have to have a dowry that you will not find in the vast majority of engineering graduates, you will find the specialist with a title acquired as you will find a specialist without title acquired, I have been able to see it! to keep pace with industrial needs, I mean by the prototyping of a product that will have to be tested before being realized, with your (and it's just your) philosophy design times (and costs), would be burdensome and not convenient! in past times the prototype of a aircraft before carrying out the first flight was about 10 or 15 years old, while now after 5 years the aircraft already has the conditions to fly! or you should know how to work in ferrari! You will see that you will give me reason!:finger:
Ossignur!!
what future we propose..:frown:
User1
Guest
see what I wrote in sampom quotas! I feel great respect for scholars and scientists! but there are a lot of people selling smoke!
User1
Guest
you can't talk about paper and pen like the remote times! the calculator I have always taken it very much into consideration, but now it always finds smaller spaces compensated by computers! And that's all!
User1
Guest
otherwise you show the opposite of what I'm saying, but you have to look into business contexts of a certain level to be able to counter my claims!
stefanobruno
Guest
There's something I miss.
in the other discussion you say I was too hard with "Lorenzojin " and I don't think I was.
Here you say that we old technicians (I madly in love with the cad) are not up to date, who no longer designs like this.
I doubt that there are only hundreds of ws with catia and no big thinking head in aeronautics and ferrari.
ps.: on a plane that flies after 5 years (if there are any) I do not go up there.
Hi, I'm going to respond to " lorenzojin "
marcof
Guest
you totally escape the meaning of what was written by er president in response to the thread opening thread.
you know, sometimes it would be useful to go beyond the simple and banal literal interpretation of a written or a phenomenon in general; this for example is a quality that have the "scientists" mentra scarcely in the "praticons" that observing the detail neglecting the "all" fail to properly assess the meaning of that phenomenon in relation to the causes that have determined it.
User1
Guest
non dico questo you say we old technicians, there is much to learn from people like you!:finger:I doubt that there are only hundreds of ws in aeronautics and ferrari with catia and no big thinking head You said well here!
on a plane flying after 5 years (if any) I do not go You said wrong here!
for the rest it is useless to fight!
marcof
Guest
User1
Guest
I think it the same way! but the people who succeed in this have not only studied, are exceptions that invalidate the rules, out-class in their context! of people so there are few! one in a thousand!
User1
Guest
see that I worked in ferrari, and I was one of the ones who took care of the 3d! 1-ce what he just modeled. 2-the structural calculation officer. 3-The press officer. ........
Exatem
Guest
this perhaps is the most sensible phrase of the whole 3ad...
marcof
Guest
embeh? What does smoke vendors have to do with it now? those are in all categories, from engineer to practical. the discussion does not concern the presence of smoke sellers in this or that other category.
sampom
Guest
And now what would you do? of grace
Exatem
Guest
He says he worked in ferrari. .
User1
Guest
Try to guess!
Exatem
Guest
4- the cleaning woman, 5-the one who points to the pencils, 6-the inflator. . .see that I worked in ferrari, and I was one of the ones who took care of the 3d! 1-ce what he just modeled. 2-the structural calculation officer. 3-The press officer. ........
If you want, there's a chance.
User1
Guest
marcof
Guest
...and at the end of the chain, I don't know after how many numbers, the last is the rubber that has been inflated, the last one has been inflated by itself.:tongue:
Er Presidente
Guest
just to clarify.
the cad and any sw that "turn" on the pcs serves to do "calcules".
calculate quickly, faster than any human mind, the result (graphic or numerical) of any equation.
the jumbo, still of reference for its aeronautical solutions, was designed all at the drawing table and "calculated" everything with the calculator or something just more sophisticated, where is the difference with a new liner of last generation? time.
the design of the jumbo has requested thousands of designers and as many thousands of designers who have worked for a decade supplying millions of hours of design.
Today, with current costs, designing a liner as you did then, would require astronomical economic resources that no country could afford and simply could not do.
at that time true design, innovation, true innovative thinking only occupied 2% of that time, used what was there and changed as little as possible, evolution was very slow.
Today every 5 years a new generation of aircraft is produced with an amount of crazy innovation. A liner today is "plastic", aluminum is over, there is no corner that is not new and revolutionary.
at the time of the jumbo a project that had such an amount of innovation would not have been possible to realize it, would have saturated all the human resources of the planet for decades.
The difference, therefore, is in the processing capacity, i.e. calculation. Nothing more. a processor, however extreme, makes sums and additions and little more ' (a risc nothing more'), but at a fearful speed.
The way to work has not changed, the "ideative" process is the same, the tool has changed.
now a motor designer today, does not think differently, does calculations, thinks solutions, ways to follow to "mind" and checks his thought to "mind", where do things change? Let me give you an example.
I can be convinced that a supercharged motor with a mechanical compressor and with 6 v cylinders is better.
forty years ago the answer I had after 20 years, 3 for the prototype, five for the production, 12 of "services" to discover that my engine, my idea worked, but it cost a bang and consumed too much.
today my idea could be "evaluated" in 24 hours with simulation at the counter (virtual) and in the factory (virtual).
so years ago a "genius" could hope to see realized 10, perhaps 15 projects in his life, today 150.
The difference is not in the "quality" of the system, but in speed.
this huge speed allows to "exhaust" huge amounts of "models" (ideations) before reaching the definitive one.
Go faster (10, 100 times faster) is beautiful, but very dangerous, if "toppa" is really bad. The system is extremely complicated and it's hard to handle.
If you've designed a four-time engine, stop.
who today is able to do so (perhaps 100 people on the planet), they need excell, and each of 1000 designers (internal and from suppliers) to "be below" with cad.
If you have this passion, let the cad lose, disassemble the engines of others (just any junk) and try to "recarculate" (by hand, or at most with excell). attention, there is no one on the planet who is capable of designing a motor from a to z, so you will need to specialize (headed with its fluid dynamics, base with fusion, mobile parts with material stress etc.).
Start with one thing, after a few years you can switch to the next, when you have white hair, if you are good, you can say you are able to design a 4-stroke engine.
for now he learns to "look" to copy to reproduce the results of the calculations, understand the enormous humility of a people, the Japanese one who copied us for 20 years and now is in the chair to teach us lesson.
the cad and any sw that "turn" on the pcs serves to do "calcules".
calculate quickly, faster than any human mind, the result (graphic or numerical) of any equation.
the jumbo, still of reference for its aeronautical solutions, was designed all at the drawing table and "calculated" everything with the calculator or something just more sophisticated, where is the difference with a new liner of last generation? time.
the design of the jumbo has requested thousands of designers and as many thousands of designers who have worked for a decade supplying millions of hours of design.
Today, with current costs, designing a liner as you did then, would require astronomical economic resources that no country could afford and simply could not do.
at that time true design, innovation, true innovative thinking only occupied 2% of that time, used what was there and changed as little as possible, evolution was very slow.
Today every 5 years a new generation of aircraft is produced with an amount of crazy innovation. A liner today is "plastic", aluminum is over, there is no corner that is not new and revolutionary.
at the time of the jumbo a project that had such an amount of innovation would not have been possible to realize it, would have saturated all the human resources of the planet for decades.
The difference, therefore, is in the processing capacity, i.e. calculation. Nothing more. a processor, however extreme, makes sums and additions and little more ' (a risc nothing more'), but at a fearful speed.
The way to work has not changed, the "ideative" process is the same, the tool has changed.
now a motor designer today, does not think differently, does calculations, thinks solutions, ways to follow to "mind" and checks his thought to "mind", where do things change? Let me give you an example.
I can be convinced that a supercharged motor with a mechanical compressor and with 6 v cylinders is better.
forty years ago the answer I had after 20 years, 3 for the prototype, five for the production, 12 of "services" to discover that my engine, my idea worked, but it cost a bang and consumed too much.
today my idea could be "evaluated" in 24 hours with simulation at the counter (virtual) and in the factory (virtual).
so years ago a "genius" could hope to see realized 10, perhaps 15 projects in his life, today 150.
The difference is not in the "quality" of the system, but in speed.
this huge speed allows to "exhaust" huge amounts of "models" (ideations) before reaching the definitive one.
Go faster (10, 100 times faster) is beautiful, but very dangerous, if "toppa" is really bad. The system is extremely complicated and it's hard to handle.
If you've designed a four-time engine, stop.
who today is able to do so (perhaps 100 people on the planet), they need excell, and each of 1000 designers (internal and from suppliers) to "be below" with cad.
If you have this passion, let the cad lose, disassemble the engines of others (just any junk) and try to "recarculate" (by hand, or at most with excell). attention, there is no one on the planet who is capable of designing a motor from a to z, so you will need to specialize (headed with its fluid dynamics, base with fusion, mobile parts with material stress etc.).
Start with one thing, after a few years you can switch to the next, when you have white hair, if you are good, you can say you are able to design a 4-stroke engine.
for now he learns to "look" to copy to reproduce the results of the calculations, understand the enormous humility of a people, the Japanese one who copied us for 20 years and now is in the chair to teach us lesson.
- Status