Designs without Product Research

[Trurl]

In the book, "Engineering Design: A Day in the Life of Four Engineers," a group of recently graduated engineers are put on the same team with the goal to design an electronic car.

 

They don't do it. But the point was that they didn't know that they could fail they came up with useful results. This is assumming a team of veteran engineers would have thought the task to be impossible and not try every option because they are really on what they have learned is possible.

 

This is based on a real experiement which I believe was successful. My question is does anyone know what project that was? Or if you have any more information on the subject?

[lightwave]

You appear to have answered your own question. In any case a copy of the book should answer all your questions.

 

I have seen that novice engineers do come up with unusual approaches to problems, but only have a success rate about equal or less to experienced engineers. Novelty does not guarantee success, it does guarantee experience through trying things that others say won't work.

 

Really, the days of trial and error like Thomas Edison are over. Engineering means successful, useful design using modern tools. It doesn't mean try everything else that WON'T work first.

 

Invention (in case you are wondering) is quite different and automatically seeks novelty.

[sunspot]

Actually as an engineer, I preferred the old timer science approach to development. I worked in Oak Ridge and there were many amazing Old Timers who had to create something out of nothing during the Manhattan project and the Cold War years, using very simple equipment by modern standards. Yet they got the job done in record time.

 

The great men of science did not have all the fluff of today, yet they are the great men of science. They invented the A and H bombs and all the needed technologies and even put a man on the moon with computers less powerful than modern PC's. The fluff prevents one from having to rely intuitive library research skills, reason and ingenuity. The fluff is more comfortable for management but often gets in the way of rapid and cost effective innovation. The fluff uses up too much resources but usually looks prettier.

 

If one is trying to do step one of a project and a single experiment comes out near what one expects, go to step two, instead of beating step one into the ground. Working on step two will provide more insight into step one than all the fluff. My advice is to practice, when one can, reinventing the wheel, so to speak. Try to come up with what has already been done, every now and then. This helps one become more logical and ingenius because one has something to compare their effords too. The skills of invention learned can be extended into new areas.

 

On the other hand, if one's goal is moving up the company ladder fluff will work better for that, because it is the concensus approach.

[Trurl]

The book was fiction, however based on a successful engineering team that invented something. Unfortunately it doesn't say what it was based on in the book. I must have read about that in a review of the book.

 

But let's talk invention. Obviously lightwave you and sunspot disagree slightly on the approach, but agree on the invention. So I will ask you guys some questions.

 

(For background I only have a sophomore level completed before I left school.)

I know that engineers have many different duties, but I am concerned with research. First, how do you show progress with inventing something new. I mean as an amateur I do little projects and sometimes they don't work and all I have is scrap paper with some math on it. How do you show progress to keep the research going.

 

And the second problem I face as an amateur (doing my own small (very small) projects) is finding projects that are worthwhile and have enough information. I mean those things you would probably have given on a job, but wouldn’t think of otherwise. Something like the scientists of the Manhattan Project knowing e = mc2 but not having the access to Uranium or know what kind of plane would deliver the bomb.

 

I think that’s why amateurs are often forced to reinvent the wheel which may or may not lead to a discovery. Still it would be difficult to invent something new without having the right problem and conditions. So with that do you guys have any advice for amateurs? How would you guys set up a small design project?

[lightwave]

I'm an electronics engineer and have experience in microprocessors and instrumentation. My approach to any task is first to define it. I like to examine the problem from every angle... kind of like surround it and attack... hahahaha

Having established a start point and I know the end point I then know the path. I always examine that path to find any issues that might erupt and slow my progress.

Once I have a definition I proceed to gather the tools (hardware, instruments, software, data).

I write up every stage - what's that old saying "an engineer needs a screwdriver and a pen. The screwdriver to make the adjustment, the pen to record it".

I try to estimate hours to completion and I always produce a deadline, needed or not. It's much smarter to work to deadlines - it drives your pace.

 

On the topic of invention - I am a student of the history of invention. I love it. As an engineer I had to come up with novel ideas constantly, mostly to save time or money. I developed a system of inventing, it works really well.

 

For your projects in engineering don't waste time repeating things that have been done, done, done. Just take what you need 'off the shelf' hardware designs or software code, it doesn't matter.

 

If you are producing something entirely new, do a basic patent search to see what's out there before engaging your money and time.

 

Train your mind to think about what is needed in a particular place.

 

There are many 'tools' for this. See Triz, Game Theory. Good overviews here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

 

I use other mental tools too, but there's two to start.

 

Invention has it's rewards which can be massive, but the path to wealth through invention tends to be a long one. Product innovation (something like developing an iPod) is faster.

 

Also, get with a group which has the knowledge you need. You'll learn heaps from their activities. Trading information is a real art - learn it.

[Trurl]

Thanks for the insight lightwave. Triz is kind of a balance of all the factors. Game Theory is a science of itself. Any way it was good to get some knowlege from an engineer. Thanks