filmscanners: OT: Native intelligence

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> > > Are you a mechanical engineer?
> >
> >
> > Many of the true marvels produced by man were made by people considered
> > uneducated or unskilled in the profession they achieved in. Gaudi had no
> > formal training in architecture, yet he designed and built some of the
> > most memorable architecture in Spain.
> 
> That hardly applies.  Architecture, and art, are not engineering, and
> require no basic understanding of mechanics.
> 

Actually, I know a some architects whole would not only disagree, but
would be insulted by that statement. In the case of Gaudi, he died
before one of his building designs was built, and they are still trying
to figure out how to put it together so it will stand.  Maybe it was
just his "last joke" (they are building it, slowly, BTW), but I doubt
it.

> You also conveniently diverged, and avoided answering my question.

No I didn't, I decided not to indulge your insulting tone and attitude,
there is a difference. 

> 
> > Some people are just born with a
> > native understanding that often far exceeds anything education can
> > provide.
> 
> I do not feel you are one of these such people.  

Luckily, what you "feel' is irrelevant.  I also never stated I was
referring to myself, in fact, I was referring to the tone and attitude
of your post which implied people who were uneducated (in an official
sense) in a certain field were unworthy of commenting, having opinions
or ideas about that area.


Though there are people
> that do have innate understanding of some things, that doesn't mean an
> education doesn't give you certain qualifications, understandings and
> abilities.  Most people who put education down, don't usually have one...and
> of course, that makes sense.

Qualifications do not necessarily translate to brilliance or even
understanding; they do look good, however, and often get one increased
income and prestige.  My personal experience has been that people who
are hardest on education are usually those most educated, who can see
the many flaws of formal education from their own lengthy experiences
with the institutions.

> > Some "kitchen inventors" have come up with concepts with no
> > training in the field they excel within. I wouldn't expect you to
> > understand, however.
> 
> Ah, but I do understand that completely.  I also know enough in this > field 
>to know when someone doesn't understand what it is they are talking about.
> 

I see :-)

> > My concern in the use of plastic carriers is the interfacing of the
> > carrier and the stepper motor or oter movement method.  Gearing between
> > plastic and plastic or metal and plastic is likely to produce wear over
> > time, and result in imprecision.
> 
> I do believe that you don't understand some of the things we have talked
> about.  I believe you have a "working knowledge" but not an understanding.
> 

Is that the royal "we"?  Personally, I'll more often take the opinion of
a good mechanic who works day in and out on real devices over an
engineers theoretical opinion, any day.  If all engineers were so good
at what they do, most mechanics would have been out of work years ago.

Barely a week goes by that a manufacturer isn't forced into a recall of
some product due to design flaws leading to safety issues.  If they had
to also recall due to 'just damn stupid design', the list would be
never-ending.

As for my personal lack of "understanding", let's just say that in my
"uneducated" and unwashed state, I have helped to redesign a number of
products in concert with manufacturers who first hired "engineers" to
come up with the original failed design.  Unlike you, I won't make a
sweeping statement and malign "all" engineers.  It's only some who are
incompetent.  Many are simply brilliant at what they do, and probably
would have been even without their formal education.

> If designed properly, that mechanism can easily last a lifetime.  Also, wear
> does not imply imprecision.

I see :-)  Isn't that true of pretty much most things that prematurely
break down?

> 
> > Regarding the SS4000, although it does not apparently need
> > multi-scanning, due to the quality of the CCD which limits noise,  I
> > understand that multi-scanning is not as precise due to some aspect of
> > the carrier or positioning design.
> 
> That could very well be, but if designed properly, that need not be.  The
> "unmentionable" scanner IS a three pass scanner, and has NO registration
> problems between scans.

Creating precision is usually costly.  It requires tight tolerances all
the way around, including in manufacturing, often from many components
from a number of sources.  It often means careful testing of dimensions
of parts along the manufacturing process, more advanced and precise
machinery and sometimes, better trained assembly workers, who may have
to also take more time in doing each step. No one is saying it can't be
done, it just is very difficult when corners are needing to be cut to
keep competitive.

Even in areas of manufacture where extreme care is supposed to be
occurring, like, I don't know, let's say O-rings for space shuttles?,
errors in either design or sloppy manufacture or handling during
installation can be catastrophic.

Getting back to scanners, why is it there is so much discussion of
"banding, banding, banding"... is it that manufacturers think we "want"
banding in our scans?  Of maybe it has to do with problems is design
(gee, could that be engineers who made errors?... no, couldn't be)...

Or maybe, there is lack of precision in the components?  Changes in
dimensions due to temperature?, or changes of electronic component
characteristics?  Or, yes, some might be software programming defects as
well.

My point, very simply is that your assumption that mechanical engineers,
by nature of their diplomas automatically make they more capable of
understanding or implementing design is only partially true, and if they
were all so good at it, we'd like in a world where things held up a lot
better than they do.

I'll finish with a joke.

What do you call the person who finished last in his class in medical
school?

Doctor!

Art