xxChrisxx wrote:

bazanaius wrote:

you may as well have just drawn a crude sketch on the back of a peice of bog roll.

I have done exactly this. Can I start a thread about it?

Only if the paper wasn't 'used' after the sketch. In the case of this thread, I think it was.

Once upon a time all the best designs were done on an old fag packet (not a bog roll), today they let the computer's do it for them.
Ideas are no longer any use, it has to be math. I tried to build a gear case once, designed by a computer with an educated guy on the keyboard and I could find no way to get the bolts in.

autogyro wrote:

xxChrisxx wrote:
Only if the paper wasn't 'used' after the sketch. In the case of this thread, I think it was.

Once upon a time all the best designs were done on an old fag packet (not a bog roll), today they let the computer's do it for them.
Ideas are no longer any use, it has to be math. I tried to build a gear case once, designed by a computer with an educated guy on the keyboard and I could find no way to get the bolts in.

Just incase you didn't get the reference I was calling your 'idea' shit.
I will continue to bash it, until you at least attempt to back up your statements with some kind of fact, and not speculative waffle.

The point is all the best designs went from fag packet, to being analysed, and a feasability study, then implementation. Noone I mean NOONE designs something that goes on to be of any notice what so ever, even on the back of a fag packet without doing at least 'back of the evolope' calculations.

The mere fact you refuse point blank to answer any relevent technical questions that could be used to even remotely analyse your 'idea' shows this to be nothing more than the equivilant of a doodle, if it indeed exists. It's not even past the stage 0 on the credibility scale.

In fact i'll even throw it out there that you've not even done any calulations, even rudimentary ones, either becuase you are totally incapable and don't want to reaveal, or just making this up as you go along. The back of the envelope calculations wont even give anything away about HOW your design works. Ther eis no reason from a 'secrecy' point of view for you not to answer them.

And this entire thread and almost every post you have made since you have joined has been little more than ego masturbation for you.

So your not so good with computers, in an engineering sense.

You think engineers use maths too much these days.

And you think the REAL engineers are those who work in terrible conditions with raw spanners and oil and stuff.

This sounds like something you built with an angle grinder in your shed, only you havent even built it yet.

i think autogyro mean that engineering is lacking creativity these days, and since math is a knowledge and creativity is more important than knowledge.

autogyro means that all he has in an interesting idea that he claim is absolutely awsome, all we have to do is try and work out how and if it works for him, so that he can believe himself and patent this system and perhaps build it in real life.

mike wrote:i think autogyro mean that engineering is lacking creativity these days, and since math is a knowledge and creativity is more important than knowledge.

autogyro means that all he has in an interesting idea that he claim is absolutely awsome, all we have to do is try and work out how and if it works for him, so that he can believe himself and patent this system and perhaps build it in real life.

I think he is a troll.

mike wrote:i think autogyro mean that engineering is lacking creativity these days, and since math is a knowledge and creativity is more important than knowledge.

autogyro means that all he has in an interesting idea that he claim is absolutely awsome, all we have to do is try and work out how and if it works for him, so that he can believe himself and patent this system and perhaps build it in real life.

I'd have to disagree really. The fact that engineering is no longer a 'suck it and see' discipline like it was back in the day is progress, not a bad thing. Fact is in the modern era only 'ideas' that have true merit are developed does not mean a lack of creativity.

Simulation and virtual prototyping had seen the traditional prototype off for the most part. You can have ideas and skeches all you want, back in the day you'd have to make it to see if it works. Now rigoruos feasibility studies and simulations are run BEFORE seeing if its worth making.

It's been common knowledge that professional engineers have ALWAYS needed incredibly high mathematics skills. The only people I have experienced who call themselves 'engineers', that actively distrust people who apply a scientific approach to development as opposed to a practical approach, are all old time served machinists who for some reason don't want call themselves a machinist.

They have the attitude that becuase 'them academics with their bloody compOOOters' can't operate a machine and make it themselves they don't know squat. When infact the two jobs are complimentary to each other.

At the end of the day, for autogyro's 'idea' (if it indeed exists, of which there is no proof what so ever) to be made by ANYONE, it'll go through the hands of the man with the calculator first.

All I am asking for is, don't make shit up. Unless you have figures to justify the fantasitc claims that the device has better efficiency, it's all just hot air from an old blowhard. If you claim somthing is awsome to a room full of engineers, they ARE going to ask you why, and the ARE going to ask you to prove it. If you continually dodge their questions and deflect they ARE going to call bullshit on you.

Autogyro has demonstrated NOTHING with regards to his 'idea', no proof, no figures, not even a coherent description. If you don't want to duscuss it, why bring it up all the time?

/thread right there as that was a post contraing epic truths.

tok-tokkie wrote:
I think he is a troll.

It's starting to look that way.

Shame really as the idea ounded fun at the start (a bit fantasic but not beyond the realms of reality). Now it's starting to smell like a heaping great mound of bullshit.

^That's a bit too personal. Please be more respectul, no matter what the discussion/argument is about.

mx_tifosi wrote:^That's a bit too personal. Please be more respectul, no matter what the discussion/argument is about.

Someone who acts like a troll doesn't deserve any respect from anyone. However you are right, on reflection it is slighty too personal.

autogyro wrote:today they let the computer's do it for them.
Ideas are no longer any use, it has to be math.

one could say paintings in Sistine Chapel were painted by the brush and not by Michelangelo.

computer is just a tool, it's up to engineer to make the right use of it.

and the math is the language used by engineers to describe and communicate their ideas.

I agree there is lack of creativeness in our world but I would not blame computers. it's our irrational "economy" and monetary system which made invention (other than creative accounting) useless.

regards

I find it all very weird too.

If you have an idea that you can't talk about for very good commercial reasons.....then don't talk about it AT ALL.

What we actually have is a whole bunch of posts from one person, posts that actually say very little, but use up lots of words.

I totally fail to understand why the basic questions can't be answered.

Let's say with a typical gearbox/final drive - 85% of the engines' output gets to the rear wheels (fair guess?), then how much will get through with the new design? I assume you still need a diff' BTW. If the answer is 85% - then you would beg the question 'why bother' - if the answer is 95% you would give it some consideration and then ask the question 'how much of the missing 5% is from the diff'?' - leaving some idea of how efficient the 'box is.

Then you claim the little gizmo is so tiny that it saves weight - answer how much over a conventional gearbox. Then explain how much weight you put back on in having to mount the differential, suspension arms, dampers, spings, rear wing, crash structure etc. etc. - all of which currently use the gearbox casing as a nice little bracket.

Simple simple questions - do we need to keep going on?

RH1300S wrote:Let's say with a typical gearbox/final drive .... <snip> .... use the gearbox casing as a nice little bracket.

Thanks for the return to sanity.

Autogyro - I think people are genuinely interested albeit occasionally frustrated. Would be useful to see discussion along the lines noted by RH130S.

Once upon a time all the best designs were done on an old fag packet (not a bog roll), today they let the computer's do it for them.
Ideas are no longer any use, it has to be math. I tried to build a gear case once, designed by a computer with an educated guy on the keyboard and I could find no way to get the bolts in.

This is not a fault with the computer. If you'd designed it on the back of a fag packet you still wouldn't be able to get the bolts in.

The PC doesn't design things for you - it is a tool, in exactly the same way as your pencil and fag packet are.

Idea's go on a fag packet, or a napkin, or bog roll, or whatever is at hand when it comes to you. Designs do not. Going from fag packet to physical prototype is an inefficiently expensive way of doing things - computers are expensive, but a very efficient expense if you consider the quantity of different prototypes they can develop in the same time. There is a reason that computers are used widely, and your inability to use them is not their failing.

Possibly a harsh reply, and I now realise slightly OT, but whilst you get defensive of those people who get their hands dirty for a living, you are actually being quite rude to all those who work differently.

All good points.
Perhaps it is because of computers that development has become more and more specialized and narrow focused to balance the limitations of the computer data base.
Of course they are a good tool, like an oily rag in fact. Unfortunately the data they contain has followed the accepted commercial direction and not the radical.
For example it is now possible to develop aerodynamics for F1 without any need for a wind tunnel. ask Nick Worth.
I do not think it is enough but it matches the needs within the regulations.
I doubt there would be enough to analyze the Lotus 88 and any ideas from it.
It is the same narrow focus in every other (now highly restricted both by regulations and cost),engineering discipline. The worse case is in transmissions.

I do not for one second suggest that there are no longer any free thinkers and geniuses in F1, just that their ideas and potential has become more stifled over recent years and has been replaced with operations put in place by the red braces coke brigade from the city.
Time for change? British led as always?

Oh sorry, I do build my own computers as a hobby, mostly for multi tracked music recording and flight simulators.