The Theory vs the Reality

The best designers are really artistic people with practical skills in engineering to product.

In many companies there is a large gulf between the designers and the engineers who actually have to make the products which are designed.

This is grossly inefficient, but historically the gulf is maintained by those who think their skills are most important, and are not prepared to up-skill themselves to learn more about the skills of "The Other Side".

Part of the problem is often also caused by Managers, who naturally enough, look at their own area of responsibility.

Kind Regards....

We have made changes to curriculum to address this. Industrial drafting students are required to take an introductory machining class. They learn how to use a vertical mill, lathe, surface grinder, drill press, and a vertical band saw. This gives them some insight to what it takes to achieve the tolerances they will be calling out on prints and how to use them properly. In addition this also helps them in design work because they can think in terms of how they might make the part. They also leave with an understanding that they have only scratched the surface of how to use these machines and much more is possible.

Students in other areas such as industrial maintenance, robotics, and lasers take this class as well.

Even after taking an intro to machining class I bet most of them still will detail a turned part with the datum on the left side. It's hard to get a set of calipers in the chuck of a lathe.

I owned a machine shop for 5 or 6 years and ran one before that. I also have a mechanical design background. It floors me when I see drawings which are sloppy in appearance and also require the guy standing in front of a lathe or a mill to have a calculator to figure out what many of the necessary dimensions are.

The highest compliments I've ever been given was on a set of drawings for a huge rotary seperator which was shipped on a flat bed trailer with wide load signs and two escort vehicles. The comment was that the drawings looked like a piece of art work that could be framed..... and the only call I received from the shop was to tell me it was finished and asking if I wanted to be the one to turn it on.

When I ran my shop I did a run of 1000 parts with an insanely tight tolerance. I called and talked to the person who's initials were on the drawings. He assured me they were all accurate and indeed necessary. Their eyes poped out when the parts were delivered, all in spec. As it turned out these were handles for some press designed by some kid right out of school. The part your hand went over had a tolerance of +0.0005, -0.0000. That's right - half a thousanth to work with... but he thought all those extra zeros made his drawing "look" professional. I informed him all those zeros COST money.

There's no such thing as a cheap education.

Travis

but he thought all those extra zeros made his drawing "look" professional. I informed him all those zeros COST money.

This is exactly why the class was added here. They make some parts that have +/- .030" and others that are +/- .002". We even throw in + .000 / - .003 for some OD threading on the lathe. Most get the idea afterwards. Do they all get it? Probably not. But that does not stop us from trying.

Hi there,

The North American general style of Engineering education for mechanical purposes could be improved. I have worked with many students in my years in the office. What is clear is that the true understanding comes primarily from doing as text book information is often misinterpreted causing tolerances and designs to be applied in areas where they do not belong. In essence often raising the cost of product and lastly company competitiveness.

The North American School system schould take a slice from the German Engineering Schooling system, where much more time is necessary on the bench in order to be qualified. Results of this can be seen when looking at automobiles made in Germany, as generally there is a very high standard and presence of having it done precisely, as the hands on and design world seem more fused by commonality of education.

Of course then there is the fine line of when to do it right to three or four decimal places and when not, typically German cars are expensive, likely due to all that precision. Their educational system also has something to learn - when to not be precise, although this should be easy for them to learn, as they have the more practical aproach.

What is to be noted is that although I feel that a higher percentage of technical ability is needed in North America, often it is uncertainty on the designers part, and the fact that the designer may be afraid of causing issues by relaxing the tolerance. Hence, to cover, the designer decides "to add decimal point of precision", so he is not to blame should something go wrong. GD&T eliviates some of these issues of fit and function, but the designer still makes the call, and the Engineer may also approve rather with a tighter tolerance, he may even request changes to tolerancing to sign off a drawing.

Common sence must prevail based on technical and practical experience. In my eyes in an organization it is of most importance to also team design, engineering and manufacturing personell while assuring that there is the presence of a manager with true wisdom, based on practical and theoretical experience.

Theory will always be theory, but there are differences of likely feasible theory and non feasible, wisdom and confidence will be able to sway the odds in favour of success at the theoretical stage. Can we create a course on that, essentially paving the road for thinking along the correct path to get to feasible theory before even attempting reality and tie it in while learning practical skills? Of course this must be done without sacrificing to try the obsurd, as failure is a great part of learning, and some of the greatest achievements came from absurd ideas.

Absurd - so thought the theorists at least.

Mirco Graenert.

So as not to mislead anyone I must tell you I am an adjunct faculty in the Machine Trades Program as well as a full time mechanic in the machine shop. I teach a few introductory machining classes as well as training for industry and have my own small machine shop. My shop is more of a hobby really. I have a couple of companies that I do work for and do not advertise.

Having said that, you make some good points and here is a sample of what we are doing.

Our Manufacturing Department is comprised of Computer Integrated Manufacturing (robotics, industrial maintenance), Industrial Drafting and Design, Machine Trades (Tool & Die, Injection Mold Tooling, CNC Programming and Operation w/ a 3rd year option), and Welding. Since these programs are all related to one another each student must take certain core classes as part of the curriculum. Everyone will take an introductory course in drafting, machining, and welding. This way the robotics student knows a little about welding when they program a welding robot. Drafting students have had some hands-on experience with machining and welding to give insight into designing. Welding students will typically work in places that have mills and lathes and this helps them get an edge over other job seekers. Machining students must be able to read prints and in die / mold repair there can be some welding involved at to build up worn or damaged surfaces. The students also take a Blue Print and Metallurgy class that gets into GD&T and SPC.

Education has become a business. We are asked to compete with other 2 year institutions for enrollment as well as keeping our costs down. This includes reducing credit hours required for a degree. I have been there when the question of "what do we cut out?" has been asked. It would seem the administration is trying to tear down what so many faculty and advisors from industry have tried to build up. I am not talking about removing "fluff" from lectures. I am talking about removing lecture and lab time from the course. I can not speak to the challenges the Drafting department faces in particular. But, these are the challenges we face in my area. I can only imagine they are facing similar issues.

As education becomes more competitive it reminds me of the old TV show "Name That Tune".

I can teach that student in 3 yrs.

Then I can teach that student in 2 yrs.

Well I can teach that student in 1 year.

I can hand that student a diploma right now.

A bit extreme but this is how it feels.

is this an investigation?

Hello all,

In my opinion (of working people), all of manufacturing phase of every company are always facing this situation. How come? because there are so many factor related to design phase such as Manufacturing Cost (amount of trial piece, equipment, tool, etc), Product cost, Design members (such as process and technical designer and support team) etc. Those factors are the limitation of inherent things that are not revealed to design phase but to manufacturing phase. Therefore, we just always think why designer didn't encounter it. AND there are another factors that very shame to talk about that is capability of designer. Some are often self-esteem in their design and think it is best properly to do like that (eventhough they never research to new technology or design or how well advance knowledges go beyond). They always keep some inherent weak point of their design (also in their mind). And as well as process designers (manufacturing designer) often design some stupid process and fabrication (even they never and never tried to experiment what they have design - I think it mignt not call "Design"- then, release the stupid work piece to manufacturing phase.

That I have been experienced.

The important thing to solve this I think manufacturing team has to be very skill to solving the problem. Then feedback to design team to get , know , improve, change.

Theory is still theory - Pratical is not always same as theory but practical is often based on theory and vice versa.

I am little engineer.

This sounds so familiar, for about twenty years we had a situation where our engineering staff was located 500 miles from our manufacturing facility. We had a tremendous amount of R&D work going on at all times, with most all parties envolved having a great knowledge of the machinery involved. We were constantly receiving boxes of parts from the engineers with no paper work, no drawings or explanations at all. We had to do what ever was necessary to assemble, install and bring into production these boxes of undiscribed parts without any communications with the engineers. It was incredible the success we had doing things this way. After 20 years a new building was put up and the engineering staff was moved on site. When we started having them on hand when their ideas were put to work they were truely amazed at what was previously acomplished without communications from them stating the intent or expected outcome from the packages that were sent to us. They weren't always a success but the majority of the time they were and after it was completed we would send them a note of any changes made or recommended. How many businesses are operating this way today? How many could be improved with a few words of wisdom from the designers as to what they would like to have accomplished by the ones responsible for installation. J.Conway