90% of my old job was modeling, and spent countless hours in college learning 3D modeling. Yet no-one ever gave the advice to suppress unnecessary graphic features. The amount of crashes I could have avoided.....
This should be carried over into suppressing parts, as in simplifying! Once you have a detailed design, take a pass or two through it and see how many parts can be physically deleted such that the design still works. Save two ten cent fasteners, on one hundred thousand widgets and pretty soon it adds up to real money, not to mention the time savings in assembly and repair processes.
Maybe they changed school programs since I was in school. I got maybe two CAD courses and they rest was physics and math in school. I learned 95% of my modeling skills on the job and yes a large portion of many engineering jobs are tinkering around in CAD.(AKA the same work description as a pro gamer, but more relaxed and less stress)
@@Chris-bg8mk "Save two ten cent fasteners, on one hundred thousand widgets and pretty soon it adds up to real money," If you are making a widget that people will buy only one of then this is not a good idea. We see this all the time in tools built down to a price "For the sake of a ten-cent part, you ruined a fifty dollar tool", Milwaukee, I'm looking at you, you may have saved $100,000 but you have pissed off 1,000,000 customers. Sure, if you are designing a new type of fixing, which will be used by the thousand, it makes sense.
@@BoB-Dobbs_leaning-left Excellent points Steve. There is definitely a logic to eliminating any extraneous parts or features (often far more difficult than most people realize), but you also don't want to eliminate too much and reduce reliability or usability. I've designed several things that begin pretty complex, then by continually tinkering, and looking at exactly what is being done, or the specific stresses, and other criteria to simplify things. What is funny is that once it is reduced to it's essence, people look at it like it is so simple that anybody could have designed that. Little do they know ...
Awesome video. The divide between designer and fabricator is always a challenge and a regular source of conflict. Contractors/fabricators get so frustrated with engineers because it's way easier to show something on paper than it is to build it. Small changes can often make huge improvements to constructability. The more time you spend in the field, if not participating in construction, at least witnessing how things go together, the better a designer you'll be.
And the divide due to CAD systems and ERP / PDM systems evolving wildly and fabricators / contrators still "trapped" in the physical world is a whole new challenge. Doing 2D drawings that can be understood in a dirty workshop, under pressure, with no mistakes and eliminating any error source takes a while to learn. In one end , you got workshops are full of experienced 40+ year old machinists (some as old as 60+) that want PAPER (unless it's CNC, but that's a whole another beast). In the other, someone who's just getting into engineering , young and inexperienced (we've all been there) that is in a stressfull office space with management and delivery dates. I'm grateful that in my field of work I can periodically visit the workshop (not only when there's a huge mistake) and get feedback. I love being there and seeing how things are done, things that they want to complain, and what the scale of what started with a click is. Also, lots of welding and metal shenanigans ensue. For instance, turns out steel is heavy (: .And thus, making assembly alignment features, and lifting points is very appreciated.
As much as I want to agree with this, there's also the flip side where the factory people are telling me as an engineer what the design constraints for the end user are. But they often don't see the full picture of integration between product A, B and C. Then you can get endless discussions about things that don't even matter to them for assembly or manufacturing. But of course that fully depends on the person you're on talking with. There's also loads of people that just want to help you to increase the manufacturability and that's great indeed.
in software its all backwards but similar and the same issues arise, only this time theres no engineer and the designer studied how to design for print in college the fabricator is the front end engineer
I'm 81, got my BSME in 1964 and have been designing [inventing] stuff for all that time. This is probably the best advice on the subject that I have ever seen/heard. Simply outstanding!
I've been doing it a while as well as a technician apprentice, draughtsman, senior mechanical designer, contract spm designer, consultant and manufacturer ( maker) and supplier ( 200 parts typical) optical apparatus - Jeremy Fielding has passed with distinction!
I am a retired machine designer and I have to tell you that I am impressed with what Jeremy has passed along. I have mentored a couple of young engineers and have given them nearly identical advise on most of these things like "when you begin work for a company with a machinist, you make him your best friend because he will teach you more about designing then anyone else there". Well done Jeremy
For manufacture, assembly and repair: Minimize fasteners. Use the same size/length and the same cap/head type. Ideally your repair person only needs one tool to disassemble your creation.
If you want an example, look at any small equipment by Husqvarna. It's all brilliantly designed for good performance, efficient use of materials, and ease of assembly and repair. They are rarely the cheapest products, but they are frequently the cheapest products of comparable quality. Their competitive advantage is their design philosophy.
Fastener Reduction is a whole paradigm, and an important one, since it slows assembly time. I would argue it should become Joint Reduction (to include welds), Part Reduction, etc. Complexity is undesirable for boat-loads of reasons.
I’m retired now but I always operated on the principal “why is there never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over”. Something I always pass on to the younger generation. Great video Jeremy! Clearly thought out and concise.
I'll play devil's advocate... because 9/10 times the not-fully-right way will last "long enough" and not need to be done over until there are other reasons to want to replace it. Time to deliver/market is a business constraint that engineers like us don't value as much as we do a beautifully elegant and highly optimized solution. In my experience when a project manager is absent or not skilled enough, and the engineers are unconstrained on a project, the projects never get finished because there's always more that can be made better. Instrumenting some software for metrics can take 1 week and be good enough to get it into production with some reasonable visibility, or it can be "done right" and take six months, deep statistical modeling, and performance tuning, etc. but jeopardize the entire product having any market demand at all by the time it's ready.
I have often found that frustrating as well, but the main argument to this is if you do it twice you learn twice as much about it (requirements, design issues, failure points, etc.). Trying to get it right in one iteration will inevitably lead to an inferior product. This is why I love 3D printing...it usually takes me 3 tries to get exactly what I'm looking for and I can get there pretty quickly using rapid prototyping.
While I agree with some of the points being made here, I will add a further caveat... when one is rushing there are ample opportunity to take shortcuts and to miss things... that is a major source of where that phrase came from... the corollary is that it takes three times as long and six times as much money to correct those screw ups or errors, and it only gets worse the farther it gets along the process... a simple thing that could have been caught with only a single hour of extra time at the office can cost hundreds of dollars and days of labor during the build process and can cost several thousands of dollars and people being flown out to customer sites (with all the expenses) as well as lost time to take out the error, and install the proper thing during installation and start-up.
@@gumby5068 This only works for oversizing not undersizing. Pressing so hard the material expands could work I suppose but that presents lots of other issues.
"The thing youre trying to make may already exist but has a name you don't know" The process of finding that name can be a journey in itself. The value of mentors and peers is amazing.
I LOVE this one (and have found it super-valuable lesson many times). Experience has taught me to look in the farming/agricultural industry for many solves
This is one of the reasons I keep a level of awareness in the back of my mind, hanging on to interesting little tools or processes that I stumble across, just in case I need that bit some day. I've used so many of these for simplifying repairs and build processes over the years.
I've got 20 plus years as an ME and you're spot on with everything you said. A couple of things I'll add --Always include the hardware in your models. This will ensure that the heads don't interfere in some way and that you have access to put them in --I always put all of the hardware into one folder in solidworks and I can suppress all of them with one click if I need to while working with the model --As much as possible use all metric or all SAE hardware --If you have to mix metric and SAE hardware as much as possible, try to group them together and identify them by head type or finish --For very large assemblies, subassemblies are your friend. It's much easier to build a subassembly on the bench and then move it over to the larger assembly --Try to move all of your tight tolerance features to as few parts as possible --NEVER use slotted head screws --Especially for the younger engineers, if you have a machinist in the building with you, become their best friend. Some of the most valuable information and lessons I have ever gotten have been from machinists. --ALWAYS build your own prototypes the lessons you will learn as you try to assembly your own work are invaluable Final thoughts here. If you are in a position where coworkers are asking you if can do something crazy and breaking the laws of physics don't say no right off the bat. Rather, ask them why. Try to get them to explain to you at the most basic level what is the problem they are trying to solve. If you learn to do this well and how to empathize with people bringing you the problems you will find that they will start to involve you in the decision making process earlier, ideally before they start thinking about breaking the laws of physics.
@John Deaton Yes: I meant Allen keys. As for stripping: aren't torx worse thanks to their tiny flanges in all the vertices of the hexagon? 🤔 In the end only Robertson's heads are superior. And slotted head screws are The Evil. 😬
@@Mr_Yod I am a mechanic, I have seen plenty of stripped allens but can't remember seeing a stripped torx... In fact, I have removed several stripped allens by hammering a torx bit into it. Not great for the tool, and doesn't work for every circumstance, but it has worked plenty of times.
'If you can't make it perfect, make it adjustable.' I can't remember where I heard that but it's definitely helped guide a lot of the design work I've done, whether it be with avoiding tight (expensive) tolerances or making fixtures more versatile. Edit: lots of great points below detailing the pros and cons of adjustability in different circumstances. I should have prefaced that I approach from the mindset of someone doing mostly R&D, where parts are usually one-offs and fairly expensive. The ability to design for multiple potential uses is what I was primarily getting at. Think something basic like a load frame test. If you recognize that, eventually, you might want to test a variety of boundary conditions you can save some time and money in the long run by making your fixture adjustable and/or easily interchangeable
I had a head engineer once who said he hated adjustability. After many years of letting that one simmer, I think that it's related to the "make it simple, stupid" idea. I think the idea is to eliminate unnecessary adjustability, for various reasons, but maybe the main one is because someone will likely find a way to adjust it the wrong way, particularly if more than one instance of adjustability is stacked in "series". It's like tolerance stack-ups. The question about eliminating extra tolerances (that is to say, sources of variation) and extra adjustability is always worth considering. When is it better to make a single, more complex part than 2 or more parts that need to be assembled? When is it better to tighten tolerances, and when is it better to let something "float", and either match on assembly/installation or build in adjustability to take that variation back out? The answer, of course, is "it depends".
My dad was an engineer, and introduced me to the saying 'nothing is foolproof, because fools are ingenious'. Hearing basically the same thing from someone else makes me happy. I was a mechanic and welder, and I was so happy to hear your advice about talking to the fabricators and make sure to make it easily serviceable (within reason). Thank you for including a link to that adhesives guide. I dabble a bit with making things (I design and 3D print, but don't weld too much since losing my left arm), and could never seem to find an adhesive that worked well on some materials.
There is an adhesive and process for 99 percent of all materials that work really well. There just has to be sufficient surface area to withstand the static and/or dynamic loads the joint will encounter. A good example is joining (2) 3/4 wooden boards together with regular urea resin glue (yellow). If the surfaces have been jointed and are truly flat and the boards properly clamped together till cured. The wood fibers next to the glue joint will deform or shear long before the glue joint will give up.
Easily one of the most formative experiences in my young career is when I got called in on a Saturday morning because the maintenance crew was installing a fixture I'd designed for the first time. (Lesson 1: Be there to support your team- it was stupid that I wasn't already on site) Upon arrival, I was ushered out to the work site, handed a screwdriver and the bolt and asked 'hey can you put this in, we're having trouble' Being young and arrogant I was immediately frustrated (Lesson 2: Be able to take a ribbing- usually if the guys are givin ya flak it's because they trust you enough to take it well and your life will be much easier if you can work with your support teams) and rushed off to prove they were a bunch of idiots. This immediately resolved into great embarrassment as I arrived and before even touching the fixture knew the problem- i'd not left any clearance hole to put the screw or screwdriver through to access the installation point. (Lesson 3, as noted in video and by others: think about installation and manufacturing) The guys had a good chuckle as they walked off to break after informing me they'd already brought me the drill and bits-- nothing to humble you quite like having to maul your sleek new fixture because you missed something so basic. After that, I spent a lot more time in the maintenance bays and in the machinists shop learning about fabrication and maintenance methods.
Absolutely this. I started my engineering education because I worked in manufacturing and I saw too much of this :) You gotta communicate/be friends with the people making your stuff.
My father gave me many lessons he learned being a CNC Programmer/Manufacturing Engineer in the Defense and Aerospace industry. One of the big ones was to learn as much from your fabricators as you can, and use that to make their jobs easier. He'd spend an hour programming a chamfer on a part, just so it wouldn't become a hand operation the machinist would have to do. It really reduced the total time per part, even if it lengthened the time in the mill. He'd also pour over vendor catalogs for stock cutter shapes for the machines. This let him use one specialty cutter to do a profile in 45 seconds, instead of doing it in 8 minutes with a standard ball end mill. His biggest lesson: don't hoard knowledge. Sharing it makes everyone more valuable, and helps foster a more open working culture that's fun to be in.
Always listen to the guys on the floor. They might not have the right ideas everytime, but they are the ones that get their hands dirty an know how things work in the real world. Arrogance (not calling you arrogant) by thinking you are superior because you wear a shirt and have a degree gets you absolutely no where.
Similar experience when I was in high school helping my Dad repair a lathe. We spent hours removing parts and pulling off one gear after another to get to the one broken piece at the head end., just inside of the access opening on that side. He pointed that if only the engineer had made this access cover a fraction of an inch larger, we could have removed this part from this end instead. Basically, the engineer made the cover slightly smaller than the part and so it was useless for anything other than to observe how much additional work the repair would take.
Project a virtual " reasonable access" cylinder/cone from all your fasteners to the outer bounding box of the finished assembly and look for collisions. I sometimes do one model with the regular fasteners and one where I replace them with a fastener that has the cone on top. This will really help visualise and snag access issues while you're still working digital. You can also use the shapes to cut geometry or make assembly drawings. The assembler is the first user of your product.
One idea that I learned in bridge engineering: never have the "adjacent" sizes of bolts or rebar in a job. That is, either use the same size everywhere (so long as it's not too wasteful) or use big jumps in sizes so it's very obvious if something goes in undersized. A 7/8" bolt shouldn't be used on a job where 1" bolts are also spec'd becuase they can look identical and you'll end up with undersized bolts where they don't belong.
this reminds me of a story of a previous mechanic at the shop I work at. He was changing the timing chain on a motor, and one of the bolts had a couple mm longer shoulder, which was noted in the manual, but he wasn't going by the manual, so when it came time to reassemble the cover, he put a bolt with a shorter shoulder in the hole, and it got too tight and cracked the timing cover in half. ended up costing an extra $300 for a simple mistake.
Or using metric and imperial interchangeably. I get on some parts it’s a given obstacle, but don’t do it if you don’t have to. As an assembler, I have spent too much time testing a quarter inch hole only to find it’s actually 6mm.
Great video! 30 year ME here with a son who is a college senior studying ME. I am 100% sending this video to him! My contribution to the list is to always be aware of dissimilar materials in direct contact that can produce galvanic corrosion problems. It's often overlooked.
Having worked in aviation 44 yrs galvanic corrosion is a real problem. A lot of sealants are tried to reduce the damage. They are difficult to apply perfectly and require extensive cleanup and a lot of waste plus they are not cheap. In many cases to break the electrical circuit between the 2 (electrolysis) is as simple as using mylar, x-ray or photo film etc.
Mechanical Design Engineer here: One tip I find really helps when I'm designing manufacturing equipment is to start my model by bringing in all the items I know won't change, as early as possible. Existing equipment/infrastructure, product, floorplans etc. And once I have a concept for the process in mind (developed on paper usually), I bring in as many of the stock parts as I can, so actuators, sensors, bearings etc. Capture your constraints in the model this way. Once you have all the "non-negotiables" visible in the design, then start creating very basic geometry. Call it a "minimum viable model" at this stage. It saves a lot of heartbreak when you realize early on that you will need to alter your design, rather than at the tail end of the modelling process when you will have to burn a lot of detailed work to change anything.
I'm not an engineer but I'm currently taking a precision machining course and product design has always been interesting to me. When I read your comment I realised that I had actually learned that same design flow from a game called Space Engineers where the main goal is to make creative solutions to problems. I recently built a mining vehicle that would be primarily used inside of a canyon with steep walls so it had to be able to dig horizontally without tipping over (wide wheel base and low center of gravity), the wheels had to be able to carry the weight of the ore and climb hills (more wheels under the heaviest part), and the drill arm had to be articulate enough to reach the ore while still being able to collect the ore that was dug (rotors and hinges, only some of which come with conveyors equipped meaning I had to use special pieces). The drilling arm was the most complicated and had the most constraints so I built that first and worked down the list of "non-negotiables" as you put it. I design all my stuff this way and I hadn't really thought about that much until now. Another important thing I've learned from Space Engineers is "ease of use". I could make a mining arm that can reach anything you want, but it's going to be so complicated to control it that you'll never want to use it. On the drill I compromised by having a switch for each joint on the arm that reversed the direction it moves, and a switch that stops it. The parts move slowly to reduce the chance of crashing the arm and it only requires 9 buttons to use. Two for each joint, that's six buttons there. Two to extend/retract the drills that's eight there. One button to turn the drills on and off again makes 9. That fits on the number line on your keyboard neatly. There's a million features I could add but they'd bog down control and make it a chore to use and they're just not required to do the job.
@@lol2Dlol a "game" teaching good engineering practices, FANTASTIC ! Reminds me of Leggos being used at MIT for Robotics classes ! I wish people enjoyed solving scientific challenges, more than just 'Blowing Stuff Up'
Sounds like identifying constraints. Like the lawn mowing problem. Of course in a manufacturing setting these constraints are softer than you might think. I mean yeah in general you are going to want to work around that column but if you you can justify why moving that column is the right choice long term, it might just get moved.
One lesson that I learned the hard way as a young engineer: Avoid irreversible operations. Good machines can be disassembled. Good parts can be replaced. Good fasteners can be unfastened. It’s not always possible but it should always be preferred.
YES! When I worked is auto body repair, often times the absolute worst things to repair were anything behind a door panel or in the rear quarter panels… why? Because you break so many fasteners trying to open it up. Each manufacturer had different ones a lot of the time, and you’d be scrolling through catalogs trying to find these damn plastic clips, or weird metal crimps or whatever… we could be long done with the repair, bondo, paint, ordered and replaced new window motors and still just waiting on a few damn chunks of plastic. It was the absolute worst. Then you get yelled at for taking too long and you try to explain why everything is done and we can’t just buy the stupid screws at ace hardware! ! You should never have to break something to take it apart…. I wish more companies took this seriously.
Exactly! One of the things that has always bugged me immensely is when a roll pin is used in a "blind hole" instead of a "through hole" so it can't be drifted out in the future if the need arises. 😵
For sure! As I've moved deeper and deeper into modifying and designing cars, I've reaised how important this is. Sure, putting a certain hose or filtering this spot will make it fit and keep it simple, but will it mean you have to amor remove the engine when it came time to service? Do you need to custom make a part, when there's a standard but slightly less facy part available? Because being able to just go to a shop, buy a replacement and fit it easily makes a huge difference to the whole experience. Doing things right, building for disassembly and serviceability is complicated and takes longer but extra time in the design and prototype phase is quicky fogotten 2 years Dow the line when you're removing a turbo for the 3rd time 'cause that's the only way to change the damn oil filter 😅
I've been a mechanical engineer for nearly 30 years and the advice in this video is spot on. One in particular at 10:25 is perfect. There is often a line between machinists and engineers where machinists talk s**t about engineer's not knowing what they're doing. Talking to machinists, tapping their knowledge, and including them in the design process will gain you HUGE credibility and respect.
I've worked on machinery designed by engineers which is why engineers get that treatment. Theoretically, the repair job when it's needed should be 'simple' but that is rarely the case when things have been 'designed' to be impossible to work on.
Another thing I want to mention: in my career as an engineer, I FIANLLY learned to have someone else build the prototypes once the engineering model was completed. This led to MANY design improvements because the person(s) building the prototypes thought of ways to make things easier to put together and even in some cases suggested redesign of some components to reduce assembly time or reduce the number of tools required. Just mad at myself that it took years for me to make this discovery.
Tech transfer is super useful for this kind of "fuzzing" in any kind of field where there is a process. Even just having someone from your department who isn't savvy on your particular stack.
I think of this as akin to the productive conflict of "writer" vs "editor" You need that dispassionate second perspective to point out the confusing and vague bits before you turn it loose on the world!
Recently I got some spare time and took up a CAD program - I started answering many other 'user' questions and problems on the forum - I now reckon I know and use the program like nobody else! This probably comes under the banner of 'Many heads are better than one'
16:10 "Buy off the shelf parts" My advice. Whenever possible, use duplicate parts. It's way easer to build a machine that uses 30 screws all of the same length, then 20 screws each with a slightly different length.
THIS, THIS RIGHT HERE! Even in software engineering and web scale engineering, this is HIGH on my list of engineering mantra's. Cloud computing is ALL about this. Yes custom configured computers could run the database and the caching layer better, but the operation, maintenance, and deployment hit is just not worth it until you have prooven performance really requires a custom part. Mechanical engineering, design everything to use a 10mm M4 bolt or a 10mm hex head bolt. Only vary your fastener IF and only IF you _really_ need the extra length, or width. Hey, instead of one big bolt, how about 2 M4 bolts? Sometimes an increase in part count of commodity parts is CHEAPER that varied parts. this also makes assembly MUCH easier/faster/cheaper and makes repairability MUCH easier. Excellent example of this: the PRUSA Mk3 3d printer.
I'm a service technician that works on agricultural tractors and equipment. We have some models that require removing several screws to access the fuse and relay panel. (first mistake, it should take zero tools to access these) three are #2 Phillips head and one is a T27 Torx. The same tractors have a cover on the steering column that has 4 T27 Torx screws. Two of them require a long reach bit, two require a very short bit and a ratcheting handle to remove. The less stuff I have to tote up to the cab to get something done the better for me and the customer whis paying dearly for my services.. I could go on and on about about all of the stuff that could have been easy with just a minor change here and there.
As a customer I AGREE 100%!!!!!!!!! Nothing like trying to put together some fancy furniture and trying to figure out the difference between screw A and C.
@@jimnaden5594 God that sounds awful. I remember changing our car's water pump. Removing the serpentine belt was a pain on it's own. But to get at the pump itself required the removal of a few brackets and even an engine mount. All in a space barley wide enough to fit a tool, let alone your hand. (Not fun)
I’ve been a “new product design engineer” for 15 years and your hitting on a lot of the good points. I noticed too that you never said “good at math” I feel like that’s a pitfall for people getting into engineering (because they’re good at math). You mentioned it briefly, but I’d also emphasize that people skills are paramount, being able to understand a clients fears or the ability to lead those around you through a challenging time is immensely valuable. Great video Jeremy!
Jermey, for a video that is 20+ mins, keeping your audience engaged while not wasting their time with ‘filler’ is rare. Your skills as an engineer/maker are quite remarkable and your ability to share this through this type of media (of which your production value is spot on IMHO…. Not underdone, or overdone; it is ubiquitous without being salient) is just as impressive. Your engagement with the next generation of engineers, makers, or just the average DIYer is greatly appreciated. This particular video should be referenced as a benchmark for those who wish to teach and share through this medium. I thoroughly enjoyed this video and look forward to more, and without getting too overly dramatic thank you for taking the time to share, humanity needs more of this.
Second tip: get good at arguing. Know when you're wrong, be able to identify something better. Get good at explaining how something works, or why something doesn't work. You don't need to be a jerk about it. When talking to non technical groups it is very helpful if you can use something they know to describe something they do not yet know.
Explaining something to non-technical groups is an extremely important skill to develop. So much can be lost in translation when they don't understand the problem you are describing. If you can humbly explain and not bore you will be an asset to the team.
@@Jeremy_Fielding I once made the mistake of explaining an oxygen sensor in excruciating detail to my sister in law. In my defense, she did ask what one did.
@@lousypirate Ha ha ha! 😄 If someone asks me about something I geek out on I know I better watch for when their eyes glaze over or they start to grimace. It's not often I see someone lean in to a conversation about composites or propellant chemistry.....
As a welder, i'm blown away by the 'hammer-stress-test' you put out there. Full-on Newton jump smash and it still wouldn't move! No ad would look as real. Just discovered the channel and i'm in. Very nice flow and inspiring share of wisdom.
I think you missed the point LOL. Loctite has published the engineering strength data for this adhesive. You can find details in the description. The video was just to give you a feel for it’s strength. Engineers would use that data for decisions not a random hammer test :)
As a software developer, something that you mentioned - and I'll second - and can be applied to pretty much any field is Empathy. If you design with empathy for the assembler, the end user and your company, you should yield high quality products. Thanks for the great video!
Yes! Empathy in design isn't just about making your product accessible to the user, it's also in making sure other people can work on it easily, it can be maintained, repaired or improved and that the way it works is well documented and clear. As a fellow dev, spending an extra few minutes making sure you've got clear comments for each function (what does it receive, what does it do and what does the output look like), clear and descriptive commit messaging and refactoring to hit that balance between ultra condensed, elegant code and code that a human could actually read makes a huge difference to everybody involved, including future you when you come back on a Monday and try to pick up where you left off 😂 ask me how I know...
@@helplmchoking you're absolutely on point. Empathy for future you or other devs is not just a good idea but the best of them. I recently had an issue on a school bus that I converted into a motorhome. We had to take the radiator off of the bus. There is a giant access door in the side to the air-to-air intercooler but guess what? Neither that or the radiator can comene out through that access door by a matter of half-inch (that is a 20 something x 20 something inch opening). No empathy for thr person who will service the equipment. The bus has to be lifted so they can slide from underneath. Or an Audi A8 that has to drop the whole engine cradle in order for an alternator to be replaced. Someone obviously only thought about packaging and nothing else. Thank you for your comment, it adds several layers of empathy!
In response to understand your constraints, also remember if your design starts to require more and more complexity be willing to start over. After attempting a solution once often starting over you see the pitfalls earlier and can design away from them so they don’t end up baked in the design.
Roger this is so bang on. All of the things I've designed/built that I'm happy with are things I designed COMPLETELY at least twice and they all got simpler with each iteration.
@@Mike-oz4cv This. New husband to bride: 'Why do you cut the end off the roast before you cook it, dear?' Bride: 'I don't know; Mom always did it that way. I'll ask her. Mom, why?' Mom: 'Uhhh...Grammy always did it that why...I'll ask her. Why, Grammy?' Grammy: Because we were poor and had only one roasting pan, and the roast wouldn't fit!' Conditions may change over time; outdated or misunderstood customs and traditions can lead to paralysis.
After retiring from over 50 years in Machine shops, CNC work, and Network Administration, 2 things stuck in my head. #1 I learned in a network class. " Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should" #2 I learned that if someone says "something is impossible". it actually means they just don't know how- yet. Keep up the good work.
Love this, Jeremy. You're a natural born teacher, and it shows. I retired as a pipeline engineer after 40 great years with the same company. I never went to college - barely graduated highschool. Got on with a gas company as a janitor, then got "promoted" to helping an old welder clean his materials. The engineers would bring him drawings of stations to build, most of which just depressed the heck out of him. They were fine drawings, but they didn't understand the work. So one day I took a complicated measuring station and redesigned it based upon what I knew we would do anyway. The welder liked it, so I did another, and another... Eventually the senior engineer found out what I was doing. But rather than get mad, he asked if I would like to try one from scratch. I did, and the rest is history. They moved me out of the weld shop and into a cubicle. A decade later I had a corner office with windows. I guess the point is one that you made: know what the machinists want. Know how they work. I had the luxury of being the only engineer that was operator qualified to actually get down and dirty. I never drew up a project, large or small, where in some way I didn't get my hands dirty. I know, not every engineer is blessed with that gift, and that's a shame. At least learn what it is the guys do to your designs, what they like to see on the page. Thanks, Jeremy, for this video. I'm sharing it with my third grade robotics team.
That's a beautiful story sir. You did what you thought was right and you got rewarded with a good career for it. I'm happy and inspired by your words. Thank you.
@@Parnell50 sorry to disagree with you. See, this is where you, as many of the young engineer, are wrong. Is not the paper that says that you are an engineer, is how you use your knowledge that says what you are. I don't want to offend anyone but the biggest error that most of the "new engineers" do, is to think that after some years of studies they are an ME. Between the theoretical knowledge and reality is a big gap which can be filled only after "getting dirty". Or, how i like to say: only on computer a line is horizontal, in reality never is. Mastering both sides of the problem, anyone can be an engineer without the need of a piece of paper. Speaking from experience.
I always tell people that good engineers are not necessarily the smartest people, they are just the people willing to struggle through trying to solve a problem the longest with out giving up.
Nick h :: as a mechanic once told me, “I’m not paid to fix stuff. I’m paid to have the patience to accomplish the goal, whatever that takes. ‘Doing my best’ is not the point!”
Heard a story many years ago about the cost of tolerances. During world war two, there was a drawing for a tank body casting that specified the location of a particular hole with a tolerance of 1/4" from nominal center. Lots of tank bodies got scrapped because that hole was out of spec. An efficiency review found that since that hole was for a flexible hose, it could be three inches off in any direction with no issues.
Judicial use of tolerance is a huge issue. I am an ME and have owned 2 machine shops, and have seen so many problems that were driven by thoughtless use of "Unless Otherwise Specified" tolerances. One fabricator I worked with had a sheet metal customer that spec'd +/- .002" for all their hole locations. For his manual shop, that made them $20 holes, vs $2 holes if at +/- .010".
@@fburtt CNC has really exacerbated this. I used to spend a lot of time on GD&T, but later realized that everything was going to be executed at the maximum room-temperature performance of whatever machine it was on. Unless you were calling for something truly demanding that took you into special temperature controlled machines or something, the CNC would just about always satisfy the tolerances by a large margin. BUT, when engineers get this ingrained and then send something to a different process, you can end up with wildly inappropriate callouts.
In University, we had an Intro CAD course. We spent half the semester just learning how to sketch on paper well. So many people skip the sketching phase before going into CAD. Being able to sketch well has been extremely beneficial in my current engineering internship. Great video!
A further benefit of getting a really good grasp on being able to sketch are the many times you will go to or be on a job site and need to take measurements or make a diagram of how something operates, or even what shape a part may need to be and a simple picture may not be enough. I have had hundreds of times over the years that a few simple sketches has saved my bacon once I got back to the office... Sketches are also invaluable to be able to further describe an idea to onsite personnel, whether that be builders, installers, or even maintenance... I am not that great at organic shapes but I can lay out nice and clear diagrams of an electrical or mechanical nature. You **WILL** face times where you have nothing more than paper and pencil to get your ideas down. tablets and phones will run out of power at the most inopportune times. Learn how to sketch!!
Absolutely. People get attached to CAD models and are less willing to throw them out. A paper sketch is much easier to throw out making it less likely that you'll drag bad ideas through the design process
An additional SW speed tip for McMaster parts: in addition to everything you said, ALSO go into the Document Properties tab and go to Image Quality. Crank that lower until you can't stand how blocky the part looks. You will conserve tons of triangles that way. McMaster parts always come in with that quality cranked way up. As that setting is a *document* setting, it will only affect that individual part file in an assembly. My point is, you can leave more triangles (higher quality) for the custom parts you design, and also limit the quality on the purchased parts.
This video could be on a “Satisfying for engineers” compilation. Doesn’t matter the kind of engineer. I’m an electrical engineer, but the basics of everything in this video was correct, informative, and immensely satisfying to hear said out loud.
To avoid cross threading when screwing together fine threads always start by turning in the opposite dierction and then screw in when the parts click as the thread ends clear. Great video. Great tip on the loctite design guide.
I generally avoid fine threads unless it is critical to the design. They are often messed up by machinists, maintenance often doesn’t have replacements on hand and they are cross threaded far too often. In most circumstances course threads are fine.
I learned this from soda bottles. It has been incredibly helpful in that I have never crossed any threads. Although I have had to explain a few too many times that I do actually understand "righty-tighty lefty-loosey".
It pisses me off when people see me doing this and think I'm just turning it the wrong way because this is the superior way to start any threaded object.
As a designer, if you're going to be using fine threads and you have the space to do so, put a bit of unthreaded straight hole above the thread to guide the fastener into place. Saves so much pain in getting fine threads started.
"I don't know but I'll find out" is incredibly valuable in my field, software engineering. A developer who can't say that, who can't admit they don't know something immediately? They're a huge liability. I've known several with this problem - their ego doesn't let them admit they don't know something, so project managers have no idea that there's a research cost to account for. Not to mention having a faux-expert-at-everything feeds into the imposter syndrome of everybody else on the team. Be the person who can admit ignorance while being confident in your ability to figure it out.
A programmer doesn't come to a job knowing how to do it all. He comes to it with a big mental toolkit that often includes knowing MOST of how to do it. But it ALWAYS includes ways to find out or figure out those other parts he didn't already know. A programmer is a special kind of lazy. He'd rather spend two days figuring out how to do something, once, than spend half an hour doing it twice.
This. A thousand times this. If I'm interviewing an applicant and they try to BS me instead of saying "I'm not familiar with that, but this is how I'd find out" there is 0% chance they're getting hired. As you said, they are both a liability and toxic to others.
@@UnlikelyToRemember this also seems to be something that a lot of junior engineers suffer from; I personally felt like admitting ignorance early in my career meant I missed something in my education and I was a fraud (see imposter syndrome). But if senior engineers model the healthy attitude, juniors grow out of it really quickly and everybody is happier for it. Another reason that mentorship is really important and it is sad that it is often overlooked; juniors who don't grow out of it and become know-it-all seniors are dangerously toxic.
A corollary to that is to know when you should say, "I can't really add to that." I.e. adding me to the team or the discussion won't add value to the outcome. Particularly, junior engineers, as well as those who for any other reason don't feel secure in their jobs, will have trouble admitting either that they can't add value right now, because they don't know the answer, or that the outcome would not be improved with their input. People naturally have the instinct to protect their livelihood, and it's up to those who ARE secure and/or higher up in the organization to find ways to alleviate the insecurities that lead to so many counterproductive behaviors. For us knowledge workers, I agree--practice saying "I don't know but I'll find out." Or alternatively, "Let me look into that. I'll get back to you." As long as you actually do follow up in a timely manner, and aren't just BS-ing, it's a good practice.
content creators and advertisers take note: this is how you do an ad read. A guy who actually likes your products talking about using it pre-sponsorship with GOOD explanation on why they're great good video, too. lots of things I hadn't thought about - not that I'll ever be in the position to make professional use of the tips, I just love learning what different industries consider "best practices"
HIGHLY recommend the book "The design of everday things". It teachs a lot about how to approach the desig process, especially from a human interaction perspective.
My tip for everyone is to initially break the object or machine you want to design down as much as possible, so that it is only described by it's base function. Then think about how this fuction can be archieved. Next go over what is required for those functions. This way you get a list of necessities and critical components for which you have to accomodate in your design. I hate to admit it, but cable management in some of my previous projects was an afterthought. And for working in CAD: Keep shapes simple for as long as possible. The longer you wait to add rounded edges or cosmetic freatures, the easier it will be to reference faces, edges and corners and it will save you time and nerves. (there are exceptions ofc)
Another thing, as he kind of pointed to in the video, but it bears repeating: break down the "base function" into smaller, simpler pieces of base functions. The "base function" of a lawn mower could be described as "cut the grass" but that isn't really helpful. The more breaking down you do, the more freedom you can give yourself in designing creative solutions.
Some explicit examples of this “breaking down” would be helpful. Someone gave an example of “cutting grass” as a an example of how not to do it. Can you now take that same example and give the correct way to break down “cutting grass”? Thanks.
Along with having to design cable management I found similar areas touching on electrical engineering such as panel layout and connector selection that I found my colleagues in that discipline seemed to not do well.
Keeping the "pretty" out of CAD until the last minute also helps when you almost inevitably have to scrap it and design something new. The time you didn't spend on those extra features can now go towards the redesign.
Excellent tips! I'm a mechanical engineer and I've found it really helpful to remember the Rule of Pi: actual completion time = (estimated completion time) * Pi. This rule will give you a more realistic time estimate and help with budgeting time. Everything takes longer than you think it will (and Pi is an irrational number).
Really 3.141 times longer. That's very generous. I guess it's all relative to your original estimate of finish time. Or if you put time in for mistakes and changes, lead times on components, delays because of other firms having problems. Materials from the EU or China.
Pretty good multiplier for commercial work. But if you are dealing with a government project at least use 2pi. The only time my partner and I got the initial budget right, was when we took his estimate added my estimate and multiplied it by four.😀
When studying industrial design, the one thing that was stressed by every professor was that if you weren't talking to the experts in the various disciplines, you weren't doing your job. That includes the end user, too, if you can swing it. As a software developer (yeah, I don't actually do the industrial design stuff), I have found that the end user a lot of times doesn't even really understand what they want or need. They just have "pain". So by talking to them to understand that pain, doing fast and simple iterations, increases your chance of success tremendously. I realize you cannot just prototype everything in the real world, such as bridges, like you can with software, but you can certainly make digital models and simple models to help users visualize what is happening. A common material for making fast model for industrial design is the pink/blue insulation foam board. A little bit of foam and a couple of sticks and you can mock up some really complex ideas fast to help visualize how things fit (or don't) together. Great video. Sorry for the rambling.
The end user is really overlooked in tech, ironically. I'm a systems engineer, and most of my peers over the years have the attitude of, "This is the solution I designed, and the end users are going to use it". My most successful projects have started with identifying the pain points the end user is experiencing, how it's affecting their workflow, and how it's affecting their team or business unit. I'll sit down with the primary user and have them show me their workflow and explain why the current solution isn't cutting it, or what _they_ think would make it better. They're the expert at their job - not me. _Then_ I get to work coming up with a solution to their problem. I'll be back in-touch with say, a manager or lead, and ask them for go/nogo on workflows that off-the-shelf solutions may provide and work through it. Like Jeremy said with purchasing precision 'jellybean' parts, the same goes for off-the-shelf software implementations if it ticks all the boxes. It takes time to care and do the groundwork for these projects. Sure, it may be a bit more expensive with regard to your time, but if your forced implementation/bad solution wastes the time of an entire department or business, that's a lot more expensive than your time was alone.
You're definitely spot on, no need to apologize for rambling. I did ID studies too and definitely our primary directive was to question the basic assumption of just making a better toaster when people ask for a better toaster. That all said, they also in cases would remind us that often when you're working for a company that makes toasters you need to continue making toasters while you invent the thing that replaces the toaster; and that sometimes it's important to deliver a good version of what the market expects from you. Additionally, brand new solutions have a lot of primary ground to cover while an incremental update is often riding on a well worn path of progress and that in the real production environment it requires time to transition to novel products in the market. To go back to the lawn mower example from the video, just because lets say John Deere invents some new electro drone grass maintenance machine that uses advanced trimming methods to maintain even and regular grass heights, doesn't mean they stop producing classic ride-on tractors, or even push mowers, for those who still have that as their preferred solution to the problem. There is still good design and engineering to be done in the space of incremental improvement, even in the face of major new technological breakthroughs.
The end user is overlooked by all disciplines. As a 71 year old end user, mechanic, IT guy, software user, tinkerer, repairman, improvisor, troubleshooter, problem solver, you get the idea, I have always wanted to know if the designer ever went outside in an unfamiliar setting and actually used their product. Or if they gave their product to their grandmother to use with no help other than what was in the box. Or they gave their product to the average guy on the street. Again, you get the idea. And the worst part in the process is once the product hits the shelf there is no possible way to realistically send feedback upstream. Even there ask your grandmother to let the company know what needs to be done for her to use the product and sit back and watch. I see where the lawyers have destroyed things (gas cans) and accountants (fasteners) and I get it. I have installed aircrew egress systems that the end user couldn't give feedback if there was poor workmanship. I designed the very first Very High Pressure gas lift well in the Gulf of Mexico where potentially $millions could be lost if a failure occurred. That is just to say I recognize and appreciate things that work and irritated when they consistently don't. Now I'm rambling, sorry.
@@s4n714g000 Not too personal. I have been part of software development for over 30 years. I took the ID classes as a returning adult several years ago with the idea of changing careers. However, I couldn't figure out how to get into a new field without literally cutting my salary in half or more. That didn't appeal to me. So even though I never was officially an industrial designer, a LOT of the fundamental design skills I picked up were readily transferable to software development. Overall, I think it made me better at designing software and building a quality product.
I’m a fresh out of college mechanical design engineer. Been working full time for about four months and let me tell you just actively listening to the workers and operators on the floor makes a world of difference. Those men and women know that processing better than anyone else and so their thoughts and advice should be heard. Don’t put yourself above them. You have a different skill set but you’re working towards the same goal. And when those workers know you’re willing to listen and work with them, they’ll come to you with issues on the floor over the other engineer who blows them off which helps you maintain a steady workflow. I’ve been actively working on these skills myself and the guys I work with are sometimes so grateful to be listened to that they put down what ever they’re doing to shake my hand and thank me. So be a team player and keep working hard towards your goals:)
I'm not even an engineer, and I watched this from start to finish and learned things I can apply to my work. You're a fascinating guy to listen to, thanks for sharing your knowledge
Small tip… When making drawings for parts with holes (especially tapped holes), don’t just call out the drill diameter. Add the actual drill size (“#21”, “W, “13/16”, etc.) to the drawing so the machinist can grab the right drill without having to stop to look at a chart.
@@flosch5444 I like metric too, but there's still value to calling out the drill sizes.Try using a 5mm drill for an M5 tapped hole and you'll see what I mean.
@@STORMY-lv9lr I use metric most of the time, but it still helps to call out extra details. For example, many drawings just say to tap M5 without telling you what drill to use. An M5 bolt is nominally 5mm, but the tap drill needs to be 4.2mm.
My two favorite tricks: first, try to have a sort of standard parts assortment that you use for as much stuff as possible. Keeping your inventory simple keeps costs down...if you need a 10 amp, a 12 amp, a 15 amp, and an 18 amp MOSFET, there's basically zero reason why you can't use an 18 amp MOSFET in all those roles. Buy a much larger quantity of one part and there's a really good chance it'll all work out cheaper. Worst case, try to make them interchangeable so that if you / your fab shop run(s) out of the smaller one you can substitute the larger one and not stop production while you wait on that part to show up. Second, the crowbar circuit. This is old school electrical engineering at its finest. Say you're designing a PCB that runs on DC, such as the 3d printer motherboard I'm playing with now. It's meant to run on 24vdc, and the buck regulator can handle up to 30. Reverse voltage and overvoltage will likely let the magic smoke out. So there's a large, reverse biased diode just behind the main fuse; in parallel with it is a large TVS or zener diode. If someone connects power backwards or connects it to too much voltage it'll basically put a dead short across the fuse and blow it before the bad input voltage destroys anything important. It's a 5¢ fuse that can be replaced in all of 10 seconds after you realize what you did wrong. Heck of a lot cheaper than replacing eight stepper drivers and a buck regulator.
You had better quit that talking about standardization! Those 18 amp MOSFET cost the company an extra $.12! Some supervisor is going to veto that because he can run to his manager and say, "Look, boss! I am saving the company money." And when the shop runs out of the 12 amp, he will blame you for not standardizing them all..
@@jakobohnimus5234 The issue with connectors like that is that unless your product is supplying both ends of the connector they will just get cut off. I can’t tell you how many batteries etc I have purchased where I just cut off the connectors. XT is not common, cheap or convenient. You can’t buy it locally in most places as well. If your connections are between parts you designed then there is a good chance they will be used. But if they are meant for separate peripherals unless it is a very common standard it won’t be utilized.
Best piece of advice I was given when prototyping is don't be afraid to make "Ugly" components until you get everything working. Work on the function of the part first up. The aesthetics can always be improved in the next revision.
When I was in engineering school I was one of the few students that had a machining background. I noticed that the other guys didn't know much about designing something that could actually be manufactured AND assembled. Even I had some weaknesses there when it came to designing a machine with many little parts and making sure all the tolerances were good. I think a video specifically on tolerances would be very helpful for a lot of people. Also if your design needs bearings try to figure out which ones you are going to use early on because their size will be another constraint you have to deal with. Same things goes for anything else you are buying such as motors for example.
Agreed on the tolerances. Getting designers to do tolerance stackup calculations and tradeoffs was always a struggle, no matter which discipline we're talking about.
Spend as much time on the shop floor as you do at your desk. Get the shop floor to look at how and why you design things the way you do. Saves so much hate and frustration on both sides.
So true. Tolerances can be the top driver of cost and delays. An arbitrarily chosen clearance or tolerance could result in many failures to assemble or 10x part cost. This is where an understanding of manufacturing capabilities and limitations (or consulting the experts) can make a difference.
This is such a great collection of tips! Relevant to so many fields. I appreciate your approach to teaching! In my 20 plus years of designing and building one of the hardest learnt lessons: When you're stuck or slowing down at designing/drawing. Stop. Take a walk. Rest or sleep. Do an activity that occupies your mind and body, like juggle or throw darts. Your mind needs a break and its telling you that by blocking progress. Sometimes the solution needs to work in the background of your mind for a bit. Or you find the solution in some random thing you see on a walk. Or you literally need the processing power that sleep provides our brain. Pushing through blocks and tiredness will take much more time in the long run, and you may not get there! All the good designers I've met have some sort of practice like this (even if they don't realize it) and its crucial to their success!
We must assume it will never be greased in the field. That shaft will wear clean through the bushing and deep into the base metal. It will then be run until the shaft cuts itself in two or binds up tight. Then the shop will get to fix it on a holiday weekend because we can’t have down time.
Not having lift point is a huge pet peeve of mine. Used to install skid sized industrial A/C units. At a couple hundred pounds and the top and sides being made from basically tinfoil, they were a nightmare to move. I had the opportunity to tour the plant they were made at once, after they asked for questions. I said "how do you expect us to move these things?" The entire engineering team was bewildered, at the plant they bolted them to, and assembled them directly on the custom pallets they shipped out on.
Also, when maintenance is inevitably neglected, and a pin is seized in place, it sure is nice to be able to swing a hammer at it. I’m looking at you caterpillar
Understand that there is a difference between how you talk about your own work and how you talk about others' work. I'm very self-critical and most of the engineers I know are also that way. But the words you would use about something if it was your product ("wrong," "broken," "dumb") are often not good choices for describing someone else's. In almost every case, it is both kinder and more efficient to use probing questions when you see flaws in a design--"what would happen if this went through heating and cooling cycles"--than to use your internal shorthand out loud. Once people's egos get implicated in design discussions everything gets slower and harder and more stressful.
If you find a problem, instead of pointing it out, ask "how will this deal with this situation". Sometimes, they found a solution you hadn't thought of (you can add that to your quiver). If not, it is a gentler way to get your point across.
@@stevesedio1656 Yes, exactly! And when you do the extra little bit of work to ask the question instead of just saying "that's wrong," you keep your own skills sharper. Because you can't just rely on "what you've always done" or "what someone told you"--it forces you to understand and apply the reasons for doing things.
For 40 years I had a cartoon next to my desk that had an Architect talking to a group of carpenters and saying "We are going to hollow out the 2 x 4s and put the nails on the inside, so the heads won't show". In the background were 3 more carpenters trying to bend an archway out of 4 x 4s. This always reminded me to be sure about the feasibility of methods and materials before you ask someone to build your design.
I've been a design engineering apprentice for a couple of years, and the most valuable thing I have learnt is proper communication. There are people who have been fabricating/assembling who have a huge amount of knowledge, and the difference between the good engineers and the great ones are the guys who go out and ask questions when they are designing something.
This channel is awesome, I totally have that "I don't know but I am going to find out" attitude as a software engineer. I found myself always taking the hard projects that others did not want to do. If you are the kind of person who teaches themselves and loves to learn new things, that is the number 1 piece of advice right there. That attitude is what an engineer should have. I taught myself software engineering because I love to learn new things and make things in new ways with creativity. You can only learn so much in school, and in software, it is out of date really fast. You must keep learning to stay in the game.
In terms of the translation between engineering and manufacturing, remember that more work will need to be done to make tooling for mass production of the part than designing the part itself. Any way that you can reduce the number of operations and custom workholding solutions (like putting flats so a normal vise can grip a part) the more you can reduce the startup cost of mass production of a part.
I'm constantly amazed that engineers get to make calls on things they have never done. I always learn things from the piping and ducting installers when I talk with them. Things a process engineer learned from his pipe installers: If you have a valve or switch, make sure it is located within arm's reach. Also, make sure there is enough space around it to turn the valve. While a 6" pipe might fit through a 6.5" hole, a 6" pipe with flange connections will not. The minimum bend radius of a pipe will always be sacrificed in tight spaces. Things located at chest level are significantly easier to work on than overhead or below the waist.
I was 40 years in the car business as a mechanic then manager. I was and am shocked that engineers don't spend more time with people in the trades. There were electronic ways to report issues but trying to speak with the engineer was like pulling teeth. However, when we did get a call from a concerned engineer the result was always mutually beneficial. Not to mention the lift it gives the tech that someone actually cares about our valuable input. Engineers, please listen to your techs out there. We are on your side and want to help.
@@mixer6166 Were you at a franchised dealer? I worked in powersports for a while, and our manufacturer was pretty good about dealer relations. We found an issue at our shop where a fuse would vibrate out and start arcing in one of the lighting accessories. Told them about it and shortly afterwards there was a service bulletin and a replacement kit for it. We never spoke to an engineer, probably because they speak Japanese anyway lol, but the service reps at corporate knew the machines pretty well. Apparently word got up to the right place. I think as long as you have good chains of communication that's the most important thing, especially when there's one engineer and a million dealers.
One of the most satisfying parts of my work in yacht-building is getting to speak directly with the guys who make the stuff I design. I really appreciate input which results in a smoother process and a better end product, and I hate finding out that they have struggled with something I could easily have designed differently if I'd known about the issue.
Hmmm... 6" sch40 pipe is 6.625" OD, so flanges or not, you need to design your piping system so you can get a good running start when trying to stuff it thru a 6.5" hole. I'm just being a smart a**. Your point is completely valid.
The moment when your daughter steps in and says "that one looks better" and you say "And at that very moment, I knew she's gonna be an engineer..." is so sweet! Mega thumbs up, man!
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said “stop that!” to engineers putting threaded and knurled and otherwise fancy pants parts in assemblies. Glad I’m not the only one.
Molex, for connectors is great as they have very detailed models that you can download (without registration, if I recall correctly). Unfortunately, they are *very* detailed models. Drop a few connectors into an assembly and suddenly your "part" count is a few hundred items--especially a pain when exporting STEP files to other tools.
Drives me nuts. I work in yacht-building, a lot of equipment suppliers provide 3D models of their products - unfortunately most are unusable because of excessive detail, so I end up having to model simple proxies myself. Perhaps their 3D guy had a blast modeling the embossed logos and individual balls in the bearings inside their winch, but his winch is only a very small part of what I'm doing.
@@grantm6514 I'll take all the extra detail any day as it allows me to better understand the assembly from the point of view of installation, function, access for servicing etc. but it's getting simplified before it goes in an assembly. Back in the day on ProEngineer for example, there's was a function called 'shrinkwrap' that turned assemblies into simple blocks with only outer surfaces showing. It allowed you to dig into the detailed assembly if required, but didn't load it into the assembly. A manual version of this process is to make a block bigger than the assembly and assemble it over the original assembly, then cut the assembly parts (Or just the ones on the boundary) out of it, clean up small surfaces and cosmetic features and make a new part that occupies the cavity created in the block. It's also possible to export the outer surfaces of the assembly as, say IGES files, import and convert them to solid to create a block that avoids internal details but captures dimensions. With macros, it can be done pretty quickly even if the software doesn't have anything built in to help.
@@peglor That extra detail sometimes is utterly useless, i have no need to have an embossed part number on a nut on a bow shackle that will be purchased and used as a single unit. On the drawings there will be a proxy (dimensions and weight will be exact) and a reference to the part number as an object property that will have it's own tag. If i'm going to show 5mm embossed text on a scaled drawing for all small parts, it will be just one black blob of lines and bog down my printer and no-one will read it anyway.
I've long advocated that every design engineer ought to spend some time working hands-on in a repair shop before they start designing new products in that field.
When you attach two dissimilar metals, along with thermal expansion, you have to consider electrolysis. It's amazing how fast a copper and aluminum structure can turn into a pile of green schmoo.
As a guy who used to work on boats which operate in an electrolyte solution this is frequently a problem. There are many parts which are supposedly designed for work boats, in which it's obvious that the person who designed it thought aluminum that's non-corrosive brass too! I'll just stick those together. And they make a little pretty battery that will turn into flaky crud over the course of a year or two.
I was going to post exactly this. "We" flooded a whole building once because of an aluminum heat exchanger connected to copper piping. Don't put two different metals together and put it in contact with water
@@TheRainHarvester it's not so much the metal being in contact, it's when you get an electrolytic solution (i.e. water that's anything less than perfectly pure) that's in contact with both of them.
when designing a product always ask yourself if the amount of material you're allocating is necessary or not. This is especially true if it's a cast part. You can take a $87 unit price down to $14 and end up with an easier to make part. I can't tell you how many young engineers don't even consider the material value in their customer's application.
My first tip, one I gave every CoOp student I’ve ever worked with, was learn to sketch. I’m not talking about becoming an artist, I’m talking about using sketches to capture, develop and convey ideas. “But I’m so bad at it!” They say. It gets better with practice, and a pencil and paper never need recharging or a software upgrade.
I bought an iPad and stylus somewhat recently to try using it for sketching. I'm not completely sold on it yet, but I think it could maybe replace pencil and paper for me. (But the battery did die on me during a meeting today.) It's especially nice in that I can share its screen during a video conference while I'm drawing on it. I 100% agree about the necessity of being able to sketch.
When having a design meeting, we started inviting the machinist. They've made a ton of prototype parts or fixtures. They've seen way more drawings from all groups of a company not just my team.
Electrical components are often rectangular so I often require square holes in cabinets. Luckily it’s sheet metal so you can file the corners fairly easily if necessary. I usually put a note on the drawing with an allowable relief dia.
@@DomManInT1 I haven’t had any machinists complain about undercutting the corners but if you have a better suggestion I’m happy to hear it. These are usually one off hoffman enclosures.
@@chrisreid8298 a lot of machinists are happy to take your money and make your complicated design. Most get paid by the hour. The relationship between engineers and machinists can get pretty tense. I’ve seen plenty of machinists make parts that were clearly wrong on the print, just so they could say "Well, that’s how you drew it."
@@rexmundi8154 Yup, when I was an intern at a metal working shop, I had to make about a 100 small sheet metal parts and noticed that the drawing had accounted for a bending radius in the wrong way, so the part would become to large. The experienced colleague agreed and told me to make them all to large. "They'll figure out it's wrong and probably ask you to make them again next week. It's not your fault, just make sure you did your job correctly."
One of the questions I frequently ask my management team, when we have critical time constraints and when the business wants it done yesterday, is "Do you want me to just get the job done quickly? Or, do you want me to do the job properly which will reduce repair time and maintenance costs in the future?" I like the philosophy of the build it, break it, fix it model of thinking, but I try and take a little more time in the planning phases to increase the probability that the job will be completed successfully the first time. Each are different models of thinking/building/making and both have value.
One place I worked at, we used the following saying way too often: "We don't have time to do it right, but we do have time to do it twice." Same with "Days of development can save us hours of planning!" Don't do it that way!
I'm just a 20 year old with absolutely no family or friends into ME but I've fallen absolutely in love with the process from start to finish, ill never be quite as great as you brilliant minds here but thank you for kindling the flame and sharing age old wisdom.
"It's hard, but that's your job." Been an engineer (electrical) my entire life (almost). That comment is the distillation of my entire career. We all learn that first week on the job. But somehow that concept gets lost. Thanks. Love your channel.
Probably because they realized how much it sucks after all the disappointments they experienced in their first week. Just because it's a fact doesn't mean it can't be changed. You should perhaps learn the difference between dissatisfaction and a lack of acceptance. Or perhaps you should recognize that your version of acceptance isn't universal. So long as you look down your nose at these people, they will look down their's at you. If there's one things that nearly universally true of engineers is that they love to be doormats for powerful people.
The best engineers are the ones who take the time to learn how the things they design are made. I've always been told that if you're going to be coming engineer you need to learn some basic hand skills! It's important to know that your things should be designed to be repairable and have access ways. There's nothing more frustrating than being a mechanic who can't replace a part because he has to take the entire assembly apart.
As a former turboprop mechanic, and later automotive, I want to second and stress the above comment. Not only the disassembly, but servicing also. If there is a fluid to be serviced is there a clear and simple way to catch the liquid during evacuation.
Totally agree!!! I have worked with engineers whose idea of "engineering" was playing video golf on their computer at work and chasing women around the shop!! And when it came time to "engineer something" they couldn't do simple math (addition or subtraction) couldn't understand or read wire schematics and blueprints, and didn't know the difference between a Phillips Head Screw and a 12 Millimeter Socket!! Trying to assemble something that calls out a 100 Ohm resistor and yet all I have left in the box are two inch long slotted pan head screws gets old after the first two kits I have to assemble when my engineer can't understand "the wrong parts are not the same and don't belong"! And some of these engineers today have no humility, and are pretty arrogant, when you have to do their job for them, because they don't care or understand that a 2.5 MM fine thread nut isn't the same as a 1/4 watt diode OR that a three inch wire harness really doesn't need 82 zip ties to hold it together!!!
I've done a great deal of work over the years (now mostly retired) in a number of fields. It was a pleasure, for example, to see electronic organs develop as time went on and the "serviceability" of these get easier and easier as time went on. The exact opposite is true when it comes to automotive engineering. I ran a retail battery store for a few years. There was one vehicle where you had to drop a headlight (!) in order to be able to access the bolts that held in a strut that went across the top of the battery, bolts that were readily accessible in many other vehicles that had such a strut. My current vehicle is even worse. You open the hood and you can't even SEE the battery. I recently had to have one replaced, and asked at the dealership what the mechanic had to do to get at it. He had to take the front wheel off, and then remove a panel behind that! This is absurd, designing things that way...
Great video! I learned some great things and realized that I take a very similar approach as well. 3 things I would add for advice: 1) Build modules (this is harder than it sounds since modules have interface points and those are what constrain the modules). Also less is needed to be redesigned if you find a problem with a module. 2) test what you don't know as soon as possible. Don't build a system on something you are not 80% positive that it will work. Test your assumptions early and often. 3) Iterate about 3 times. It is very rare to get something right the first time. Take what you learned and apply it to the next iteration. This is, as Elon put it, "Investing in the machine that builds machines". It gives the designer good practice at the problem.
Great channel! A couple pieces of advice for future and young engineers: Don’t underestimate the value of good peer review. Experienced millwrights, machinist, welders and fabricators are usually the smartest people in the room. Listen to them carefully.
This, thousand times over! I've lost track of the number of times a different perspective or fresh set of eyes has led to a far simpler or vastly improved design.
I’m a mechanical repair tech for assembly equipment , and just wanted to put out there that all those small design additions to make repairs easier to perform or ergonomic goes a long way for us. I greatly appreciate all the work engineers put into their design.
For young engineers wanting to understand if their design is well designed for assembly, nothing beats being the first person to try to put it together. You'll learn very quickly if you left yourself enough room to get a hand/tool into a certain spot or if a hole should be threaded because it's impossible to get a nut on the backside of something. I'd also highly recommend buying a copy of Machinery's Handbook, tons of useful info in there for when you design mechanical parts that are often standardized that you wouldn't have ever realized. Also huge props to exposing your kids to tools and hardware.
That is so true. I designed fume hoods and lab equipment and my first day on that job I hit the line and found there were bolt headed screws that wouldn't reach the holes 😅 Fighting this helped me learn to never wing things in my kwn design
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams. Dude! Excellent paraphrasing! Why had I never heard this quote before?? Good call. :D
There is a related statement, make something foolproof, and only a fool will use it. I don't agree, there is the KIS principle. There is a software engineering principle based on someone using it who understands the application but not necessarily the details of the internals, it is those people I tend to design for.
As a University Student studying Civil engineering, the main thing I found and had problems with was focusing on the project all at once, break it down into smaller manageable tasks. Less stress and makes things much easier plus this can also highlight other things that might have been overlooked otherwise.
One of my favorite engineering quotes is also the one you used in the video, but I also love is "anyone can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands." Engineering is wonderful and if you're a student going through school right now, keep going. We've all been in your shoes, it's not easy, but it is SO worth it.
I disagree, I prefer a "safety factor" of at least 2x of designed strength etc... My coworker retired from an old steel mill and he said they were still using rollers that were designed for 1/4th the load they were using them for today.... He said they were made in the 1920's and everything was oversized and heavy duty and built to last. In comparison, the newer parts are engineered to be barely strong enough to do the job and frequently fail and need replacing because the are disposable designs. The saying they don't make them like they used to is so true.
@@scrappydogfinance8434 depends on what you're making. Elevators typically have a safety factor of 10, buildings and walkways have a safety factor of 4-5, but airplanes have a safety factor of below 2, however that is changing with the advent of composite materials such as carbon fiber. Some designs are disposable and intended obsolescence is definitely a thing, but it would be a waste of money and resources to make a bridge with a factor of safety of 10-20x
Ha! I made Swivel Laptop Stands for my service Trucks to do mobile invoicing using wireless data cards (back in the day before coke and ups were doing mobile invoicing) sold the idea to Microsoft, I made the stands out of 1/8' stainless, sealed wheel bearings and 3"OD Sch 40 iron pipe. Caught one of my techs one time with his girlfriend ( he was a tool) using the laptop stand as swiveling chair to support her and get her in the right position as they exercised together in the work van... Unexpected use for sure but no one got hurt...LBVS
You reminded me of Captain Joe with a smirk on his face about the Airbus A320 cockpit captain/first officer table: "And it can hold up to 30 kilos!" (or how much weight was it). Totally not an innuendo
I occasionally walk through hardware stores just to see what they have that I can use. I have found things for a current project and for future ones. Some of it was made for a different purpose..
Good one!, I do this any time I don't have to be anywhere else. When asked what I'm looking for, I just reply, "I'm taking inventory for future projects". It doesn't take long for people at the various stores to get used to my wandering. haha
Anytime I walk around in HD or Lowes and someones asks me if they can help me I always very kindly say "no, because I'm not going to use any of this stuff for what you think it is for."
I was looking for spring steel for one project, but it was expensive to buy because I needed to buy large spools of it. I would also have to special order the size I wanted, making it even more expensive. Then I happened to remember that some plumbing snakes are made from spring steel, so, bingo, I found a small one that was cheap and used that. Another time I needed some really tiny tools to move tiny electronics around and even do some scraping of hardened flux. I ended up getting a handful of used dental tools that worked perfectly. And as useless as 4 wire phone cords are anymore, I've found they are plenty strong to hang up paintings and even large speakers. Oh, yes, definitely look at things for all the different uses they can perform, not just what they are designed to do or what industry they are meant for. You might be surprised at how your brain looks at A + C + G + I + M and comes up with Magic.
The corollary to this is browsing the (paper?) versions of supply catalogs (like McMaster-Carr, MSC, Grainger, NSK, Boston Gear, etc...) and finding things "on the next page" that are related to what you thought you were looking for. Searching online catalogs and web searches too often just show you "this one thing you asked about" and NOTHING ELSE, when in fact, that next item in the catalog is what really would do the trick. They don't send out the paper catalogs unsolicited, and en mass like they they used to, but you can request one.
Dude you rock! Its inspiring to learn from waaay better engineers than I teaching better ways to do things. I wish I could still remember all that math from college, because you and "Stuff made here" both do amazing things with it!
"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."- Buckminster Fuller Things should be elegant/intuitive/beautiful. Often purchase and use decisions are made by people who have the barest relation to the thing (known in audio circles as W.A.F.- wife acceptance factor, or otherwise management). There are thousands of unstated design parameters that go into what gets chosen and what gets left as a prototype.
The most valuable tip I can give to someone in engineering is to appreciate that there is seriously intelligent life outside of engineers. Management tends to value engineers while there are so many others in any organization that are essential to any success. Get to know the people on every side of what you do. With their support you will become a better engineer and a more complete person.
There's an old line I heard 20 years ago, something like "the engineer can tell you all the wonderful things the part does and what problems it's going to solve, but the maintenance guy can tell you whether he'd actually use it."
Jeremy, your Wisdom demonstrated of your Ability to Communicate with the Trades is Impressive. Ive worked As A Machinist for 27 years in Mining, Directional Drilling, Logging, Agriculture, and Civil Engineering. Too often the Engineers are not open to input to make the device more practical, in the Manufacturing, maintenance. I often just roll my Eyes, Sadly because they are not footing the Bill, and they are not open minded enough to see any other way than their idea. Please keep up the Good Work of Educating the Future thinkers.
Jeremy, I've been in Machining trade 48yrs, love your connection about speaking to we machinists, very good advice to engineers, I have done tooling projects with engineers for many years, the best I can tell engineers, do not think that your Degree has more value or large headedness over years of experience of machining, we can readily work with & enjoy Engineers
Software engineer here that comes from a family of civil engineers. Amazing video! The one piece of advice that I would add is something that one of my old professors told me in undergrad when it comes to collaboration: "nothing happens in a vacuum". As engineers, we get raps for being cranky, ornery, and generally not very sociable. Seriously try and avoid that. Real industry work happens in teams, and often times half your job is going to be simply interacting with and negotiating with other teams how two components are going to interact with each other. A positive and friendly attitude will pay dividends.
If you ever think that you do not have enough time to do something and that you will do it later, it is unlikely that it will ever be done. During the development process, you will never have more time than you have right now. Always set aside time to do important things like design and requirements review, but keep that time constrained and efficient.
Blessings Jeremy, from this old man (retired engineer & entrepreneur. Engineers, as you and I have done, shouldn’t limit themselves to any one field. My first degree was in Architecture, but, the market went soft, so I accepted a position as a mechanical engineer. I learned to TIG weld all types of metals, I learned to operate every machine in the shop, vertical milling machines, etc. I learned electrical engineering and programmable logic controllers. No limits.
A general rule of thumb: When tolerances and specs are not critical, try to give the assembler or area expert maximal freedom. No matter how much you know, someone who works in that area day in and day out probably has a better idea of solution ranges. By designing "play" into your solution, you also reduce the likelihood that future design modifications are going to require huge redesigns versus swapping out a single part or bolting on an additional feature. Of course all that has to be balanced against initial cost and any security/safety considerations.
Jeremy, Mech Eng 25 years experience. First advice I give all the young engineers - "the first thing you think of is wrong", second "how many ways can I think of to solve this?" Gets them thinking of all the options! Keep up the good work mate!
A corollary to this is: Most of what we know about anything is wrong. What we know that is right is only because of a narrow set of conditions or use cases. Many tragedies occur because people "know" something will work based on training, history or test results, until it doesn't. On the other hand, I've stubbled across a lot of solutions that can't work, but do because "known" things were actually based on assumptions that didn't apply.
@@videcomp I love that comment, perfectly balanced, as all things should be, yet it went somewhere and I found myself learning something. Truly a great comment 👌
This is great info! My tip: Look into how nature solved a problem. How do ducks stay dry, how do animals navigate in the dark, how are birds strong enough to fly yet so light, how do plants distribute seeds etc...
When dimensioning a drawing, use practical reference points. It's easy to dimension something in a way that is not really possible in real life. Example - use an accessible flat surface as the datum instead of the center of the part.
YES!! I have been a manufacturing engineer for over 20 years and can tell you that any dimension that is difficult to measure will not be measured (and inevitably the part will eventually be made wrong). Think about how it is going to be measured, by whom, and with what before you dimension. For example, if someone is going to measure something with a tape measure, a tolerance of +/-0.005 is NOT going to be maintained.
Most common issue I’ve come across as a fabricator to do with unusable dimensions is when the dimensions on the drawing are projected in some way. Tape measures are point to point. Parallax won’t allow accuracy if you’ve gotta visually project from the tape to the project, especially over more than an inch. Maybe two. Was building a trailer early in my apprenticeship that had a serious slope and a couple jogs in it’s overall structure. All dimensions on the side view drawing were dropped in as horizontal ordinates with the low rear bumper as the zero point. Now imagine my 1st year, green-as-hell attempts to make this work! I had a tape dangling through 20 feet of thin air and was trying to eyeball with a three foot square to “translate” 19’ 4 1/2” measurement up to the point it was meant to go on the frame. I’m giggling thinking about it! Musta been out by half a foot in the end XD trades people are stubborn. I ball parked that dimension as best I knew how cuz I sure as hell wasn’t getting another one! Ha ha! Now as a drafter, I can understand how those kinds of model items make it into drawings, and the pain in the ass it can be to get non-projected dimensions in the drawings. Recently had a project that involved a new rectangular chute coming into a domed head of an existing tank. It was off centre in probably every way possible. When laying out the drawing for the hole that needed cut in the tank I had to bounce back and forth between measuring the length of manually projected sketch curves on the model and manually annotating them in the drawing so the installation team could accurately layout the cut with a bendy flat tape. It’s well worth the time to give such usable dimensions though. Spending an hour in the office on something like that can easily save 10 hours for the guys in the field. As personal experience has taught me, trades people are used to working with incomplete info are perfectly comfortable ball-parking an awkward measurement, it’s more likely that a team will roll info they know is kinda shoddy than it is they’ll come back to you for clarification, so heads up!
It depends. There is often a tradeoff between ease-of-inspection and manufacturing, and functional requirements. Setting a centerline as a datum, between a pair of accessible, nominally-flat surfaces, can be useful. Partially depends on the capabilities of your shop. But I agree, in general. Use a real surface, or failing that, the best circular feature you have. If you can. As Mike hinted at below, if your inspector has a tape measure, there are certain things you just shouldn't do. But if you NEED to do certain things, and Inspection uses a CMM, and/or specialized, dedicated gauging, go ahead. Assuming you've done everything else possible to simplify the situation for the fabricators and inspection team. Also, just go talk to the inspector(s), if you find you need to design something crazy! They may have a good suggestion or two...
Thank you! Recently came across a drawing at my job where a piece was described as being measured from tangent to tangent. Of course these tangents were not part of the physical part, but rather the theoretical intersection of two planes in empty space. Hard to put a tape measure to.
And also do some diagonal dimensions to the outer edges to verify the angles within an assembly. Or, if it's a bridge/arc type of assembly, do a perpendicular line dimension to the span (basically, put it upright on a table and measure the highest point straight down to the table surface).
Jeremy, you are one class act. I've showed your channel to my wife who is a middle school teacher, she's excited to share your videos with her students. I'm not a professional engineer but that doesn't stop me learning all I can to design and build the things that simply don't exist or that don't exist in the price range I could manage. If I have any tips for beginners, it would have to be these: Firstly, take note of Jeremy's shop. His tools are organized, neat and not all hidden away in boxes. Tools that live in tool boxes in dark corners of your basement seldom get used. Secondly, work spaces can be expensive. If you have a front loading washer and dryer in your basement and they're close enough together, build a workbench across both appliances with 2x8 or 2x10 lumber and a few gusset plates, the kind used in lightweight truss construction. I recommend some rubber type anti-skid pad under the home brew tabletop as well. Using this space can offer you easy access to electrical service (often the other plug the washer's plugged into is unused), and a nearby laundry tub. Plus the finished workbench will already be level and rock solid since the appliances had to be. Third, never throw out a toothbrush. These are so handy for parts cleaning or adhesive application (such as Loctite's products), anything you can think of. Fourth, for as Jeremy says, don't try to reinvent the wheel at every stage. Get your hands on old appliances, watch a couple of UA-cam videos on safety practices (capacitors inside non-powered electrical appliances, for example) and start hacking these things out. I love printers, especially, for all the motors and mechanisms, there's pulleys, rack and pinion subsystems, worm gear drives, all kind of things.
You might feel like everyone else is a wizard and you have no idea what you're doing. The truth is, no body knows what they're doing. You have some people who are incredibly specialized and know MORE than anyone else in the team on a given topic, but they are still not omniscient. They are still making best guesses based on knowledge and experience. The key to success is knowing who knows about what, so you can tap into those sources of knowledge and experience when you need to. Engineering is a lot about connecting people together and combining information from different sources. The boundaries between different peoples knowledge are where the mistakes most often happen as neither person takes the time and effort to appreciate how the disciplines interact.
This is so true. Some people just make it sound like they know what they're doing all the time. After a while you recognize that they're just good at bringing uncertain things as if they're facts.
The phenomenon is known as "impostor syndrome". Each of them feel the same way, like everybody else is an expert and THEY are an impostor. It happens because people see everybody else's "best of" album and their own "blooper reel".
YES! This was the #1 thing, IMO, that needed to be learned in an undergrad engineering education. Math & science aptitude are important, and so are general symbolic and language skills. But the ability to find and incorporate the information and knowledge needed for the job is an absolute must, which can and should be continually used, practiced, and where practical, upgraded.
When I managed engineers, and one had a problem, I would send them to another engineer that had solved it. In time the teams expertise was limited by the team, not an engineer.
Engineering is the Art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze, so as to withstand forces we cannot really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.
90% of my old job was modeling, and spent countless hours in college learning 3D modeling. Yet no-one ever gave the advice to suppress unnecessary graphic features. The amount of crashes I could have avoided.....
This should be carried over into suppressing parts, as in simplifying! Once you have a detailed design, take a pass or two through it and see how many parts can be physically deleted such that the design still works. Save two ten cent fasteners, on one hundred thousand widgets and pretty soon it adds up to real money, not to mention the time savings in assembly and repair processes.
I read this in your voice
Maybe they changed school programs since I was in school. I got maybe two CAD courses and they rest was physics and math in school. I learned 95% of my modeling skills on the job and yes a large portion of many engineering jobs are tinkering around in CAD.(AKA the same work description as a pro gamer, but more relaxed and less stress)
@@Chris-bg8mk "Save two ten cent fasteners, on one hundred thousand widgets and pretty soon it adds up to real money,"
If you are making a widget that people will buy only one of then this is not a good idea. We see this all the time in tools built down to a price "For the sake of a ten-cent part, you ruined a fifty dollar tool", Milwaukee, I'm looking at you, you may have saved $100,000 but you have pissed off 1,000,000 customers.
Sure, if you are designing a new type of fixing, which will be used by the thousand, it makes sense.
@@BoB-Dobbs_leaning-left Excellent points Steve. There is definitely a logic to eliminating any extraneous parts or features (often far more difficult than most people realize), but you also don't want to eliminate too much and reduce reliability or usability.
I've designed several things that begin pretty complex, then by continually tinkering, and looking at exactly what is being done, or the specific stresses, and other criteria to simplify things. What is funny is that once it is reduced to it's essence, people look at it like it is so simple that anybody could have designed that. Little do they know ...
Awesome video. The divide between designer and fabricator is always a challenge and a regular source of conflict. Contractors/fabricators get so frustrated with engineers because it's way easier to show something on paper than it is to build it. Small changes can often make huge improvements to constructability. The more time you spend in the field, if not participating in construction, at least witnessing how things go together, the better a designer you'll be.
I'm just commenting here cause I love Grady and Practical Engineering
And the divide due to CAD systems and ERP / PDM systems evolving wildly and fabricators / contrators still "trapped" in the physical world is a whole new challenge.
Doing 2D drawings that can be understood in a dirty workshop, under pressure, with no mistakes and eliminating any error source takes a while to learn.
In one end , you got workshops are full of experienced 40+ year old machinists (some as old as 60+) that want PAPER (unless it's CNC, but that's a whole another beast).
In the other, someone who's just getting into engineering , young and inexperienced (we've all been there) that is in a stressfull office space with management and delivery dates.
I'm grateful that in my field of work I can periodically visit the workshop (not only when there's a huge mistake) and get feedback.
I love being there and seeing how things are done, things that they want to complain, and what the scale of what started with a click is.
Also, lots of welding and metal shenanigans ensue. For instance, turns out steel is heavy (: .And thus, making assembly alignment features, and lifting points is very appreciated.
As much as I want to agree with this, there's also the flip side where the factory people are telling me as an engineer what the design constraints for the end user are. But they often don't see the full picture of integration between product A, B and C. Then you can get endless discussions about things that don't even matter to them for assembly or manufacturing. But of course that fully depends on the person you're on talking with. There's also loads of people that just want to help you to increase the manufacturability and that's great indeed.
in software its all backwards but similar and the same issues arise, only this time theres no engineer and the designer studied how to design for print in college the fabricator is the front end engineer
Read that in Grady’s voice
I'm 81, got my BSME in 1964 and have been designing [inventing] stuff for all that time. This is probably the best advice on the subject that I have ever seen/heard. Simply outstanding!
I've been doing it a while as well as a technician apprentice, draughtsman, senior mechanical designer, contract spm designer, consultant and manufacturer ( maker) and supplier ( 200 parts typical) optical apparatus - Jeremy Fielding has passed with distinction!
I am a retired machine designer and I have to tell you that I am impressed with what Jeremy has passed along. I have mentored a couple of young engineers and have given them nearly identical advise on most of these things like "when you begin work for a company with a machinist, you make him your best friend because he will teach you more about designing then anyone else there". Well done Jeremy
Cool. I was born in 1964, am 58 now, and have been a Mech Eng. for 35 years, and I agree, Jeremy in on the money. Very talented guy.
For manufacture, assembly and repair: Minimize fasteners. Use the same size/length and the same cap/head type. Ideally your repair person only needs one tool to disassemble your creation.
This isn't just good for assembly, this is cost efficient, and looks great on a bill of materials.
Or ideally - no tools.
@@BeholderThe1st no tools when possible, but arguable most applications can't be really designed with a 0 tool teardown, so as few tools as possible.
If you want an example, look at any small equipment by Husqvarna. It's all brilliantly designed for good performance, efficient use of materials, and ease of assembly and repair. They are rarely the cheapest products, but they are frequently the cheapest products of comparable quality. Their competitive advantage is their design philosophy.
Fastener Reduction is a whole paradigm, and an important one, since it slows assembly time. I would argue it should become Joint Reduction (to include welds), Part Reduction, etc. Complexity is undesirable for boat-loads of reasons.
I’m retired now but I always operated on the principal “why is there never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over”. Something I always pass on to the younger generation.
Great video Jeremy! Clearly thought out and concise.
Excellent question.
I'll play devil's advocate... because 9/10 times the not-fully-right way will last "long enough" and not need to be done over until there are other reasons to want to replace it. Time to deliver/market is a business constraint that engineers like us don't value as much as we do a beautifully elegant and highly optimized solution.
In my experience when a project manager is absent or not skilled enough, and the engineers are unconstrained on a project, the projects never get finished because there's always more that can be made better. Instrumenting some software for metrics can take 1 week and be good enough to get it into production with some reasonable visibility, or it can be "done right" and take six months, deep statistical modeling, and performance tuning, etc. but jeopardize the entire product having any market demand at all by the time it's ready.
I have often found that frustrating as well, but the main argument to this is if you do it twice you learn twice as much about it (requirements, design issues, failure points, etc.). Trying to get it right in one iteration will inevitably lead to an inferior product. This is why I love 3D printing...it usually takes me 3 tries to get exactly what I'm looking for and I can get there pretty quickly using rapid prototyping.
While I agree with some of the points being made here, I will add a further caveat... when one is rushing there are ample opportunity to take shortcuts and to miss things... that is a major source of where that phrase came from... the corollary is that it takes three times as long and six times as much money to correct those screw ups or errors, and it only gets worse the farther it gets along the process... a simple thing that could have been caught with only a single hour of extra time at the office can cost hundreds of dollars and days of labor during the build process and can cost several thousands of dollars and people being flown out to customer sites (with all the expenses) as well as lost time to take out the error, and install the proper thing during installation and start-up.
That is fantastic advice!
Fascinating stuff. One of my favorite engineering quotes is, "any electrical component is a fuse if it's used wrong enough."
all electronics run on smoke. if you let it out, they stop working
@@ohsnapfit2096 I can't tell you how many times I've heard about the magic smoke.....
lol one that I came up with that kt robotics team jokes about is very similar. “Anything is a press fit if you press hard enough”
@@gumby5068 This only works for oversizing not undersizing. Pressing so hard the material expands could work I suppose but that presents lots of other issues.
@@simona625 gotta keep that stuff in there ya know, it's important
"The thing youre trying to make may already exist but has a name you don't know"
The process of finding that name can be a journey in itself. The value of mentors and peers is amazing.
Be open and interested in things outside your field.
I LOVE this one (and have found it super-valuable lesson many times). Experience has taught me to look in the farming/agricultural industry for many solves
So true!
This is one of the reasons I keep a level of awareness in the back of my mind, hanging on to interesting little tools or processes that I stumble across, just in case I need that bit some day. I've used so many of these for simplifying repairs and build processes over the years.
Honestly, this is a reason that we need to have more comfortable interconnection between fields, and less ego about where good information comes from.
This video is an absolute goldmine! One to be bookmarked and rewatched on the regular.
Indeed. I hope people keep commenting even after this is an old video.
Seriously though. Keep stuff simple.
Carrots, potatoes, cabbage, herbs, spices, water, beef roast.
Good stew.
@@Adam-118 The ole KISS principle. Works every time.
I've got 20 plus years as an ME and you're spot on with everything you said. A couple of things I'll add
--Always include the hardware in your models. This will ensure that the heads don't interfere in some way and that you have access to put them in
--I always put all of the hardware into one folder in solidworks and I can suppress all of them with one click if I need to while working with the model
--As much as possible use all metric or all SAE hardware
--If you have to mix metric and SAE hardware as much as possible, try to group them together and identify them by head type or finish
--For very large assemblies, subassemblies are your friend. It's much easier to build a subassembly on the bench and then move it over to the larger assembly
--Try to move all of your tight tolerance features to as few parts as possible
--NEVER use slotted head screws
--Especially for the younger engineers, if you have a machinist in the building with you, become their best friend. Some of the most valuable information and lessons I have ever gotten have been from machinists.
--ALWAYS build your own prototypes the lessons you will learn as you try to assembly your own work are invaluable
Final thoughts here. If you are in a position where coworkers are asking you if can do something crazy and breaking the laws of physics don't say no right off the bat. Rather, ask them why. Try to get them to explain to you at the most basic level what is the problem they are trying to solve. If you learn to do this well and how to empathize with people bringing you the problems you will find that they will start to involve you in the decision making process earlier, ideally before they start thinking about breaking the laws of physics.
@John Deaton Hex socket screws, not torx, or even Robertson head (square) screws (that in Europe are non existent =( ) would be better
@John Deaton Yes: I meant Allen keys.
As for stripping: aren't torx worse thanks to their tiny flanges in all the vertices of the hexagon? 🤔
In the end only Robertson's heads are superior.
And slotted head screws are The Evil. 😬
@@Mr_Yod I am a mechanic, I have seen plenty of stripped allens but can't remember seeing a stripped torx... In fact, I have removed several stripped allens by hammering a torx bit into it. Not great for the tool, and doesn't work for every circumstance, but it has worked plenty of times.
@@Akya2120 lol 😯
If only they were more common where I live...
@@Akya2120 Clearly you've never worked on Saabs.
'If you can't make it perfect, make it adjustable.' I can't remember where I heard that but it's definitely helped guide a lot of the design work I've done, whether it be with avoiding tight (expensive) tolerances or making fixtures more versatile.
Edit: lots of great points below detailing the pros and cons of adjustability in different circumstances. I should have prefaced that I approach from the mindset of someone doing mostly R&D, where parts are usually one-offs and fairly expensive. The ability to design for multiple potential uses is what I was primarily getting at. Think something basic like a load frame test. If you recognize that, eventually, you might want to test a variety of boundary conditions you can save some time and money in the long run by making your fixture adjustable and/or easily interchangeable
The red green show is where I best remember that quote. Along with, "If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."
sounds like something red green would say right before he peels off a strip of duct tape
Slots are your friend
I use this quote all the time. I also can't remember where I heard it from but it's been a good anecdote in most situations.
I had a head engineer once who said he hated adjustability. After many years of letting that one simmer, I think that it's related to the "make it simple, stupid" idea. I think the idea is to eliminate unnecessary adjustability, for various reasons, but maybe the main one is because someone will likely find a way to adjust it the wrong way, particularly if more than one instance of adjustability is stacked in "series". It's like tolerance stack-ups. The question about eliminating extra tolerances (that is to say, sources of variation) and extra adjustability is always worth considering. When is it better to make a single, more complex part than 2 or more parts that need to be assembled? When is it better to tighten tolerances, and when is it better to let something "float", and either match on assembly/installation or build in adjustability to take that variation back out? The answer, of course, is "it depends".
Everyone in engineering and software needs to make sure they’ve watched this.
Agreed! Has a lot of crossover with the concepts in the SDLC (waterfall or agile).
I was thinking the same thing while watching this, a lot of these concepts can be applied to software design too.
I'm a data scientist. I just sent this video to a young analyst I am mentoring. This wisdom dump is so relevant it is scary.
Watched this and read the comments! Excellent material
There's a reason why software engineering is a real field :D
My dad was an engineer, and introduced me to the saying 'nothing is foolproof, because fools are ingenious'. Hearing basically the same thing from someone else makes me happy.
I was a mechanic and welder, and I was so happy to hear your advice about talking to the fabricators and make sure to make it easily serviceable (within reason).
Thank you for including a link to that adhesives guide. I dabble a bit with making things (I design and 3D print, but don't weld too much since losing my left arm), and could never seem to find an adhesive that worked well on some materials.
There is an adhesive and process for 99 percent of all materials that work really well. There just has to be sufficient surface area to withstand the static and/or dynamic loads the joint will encounter. A good example is joining (2) 3/4 wooden boards together with regular urea resin glue (yellow). If the surfaces have been jointed and are truly flat and the boards properly clamped together till cured. The wood fibers next to the glue joint will deform or shear long before the glue joint will give up.
Easily one of the most formative experiences in my young career is when I got called in on a Saturday morning because the maintenance crew was installing a fixture I'd designed for the first time. (Lesson 1: Be there to support your team- it was stupid that I wasn't already on site) Upon arrival, I was ushered out to the work site, handed a screwdriver and the bolt and asked 'hey can you put this in, we're having trouble' Being young and arrogant I was immediately frustrated (Lesson 2: Be able to take a ribbing- usually if the guys are givin ya flak it's because they trust you enough to take it well and your life will be much easier if you can work with your support teams) and rushed off to prove they were a bunch of idiots. This immediately resolved into great embarrassment as I arrived and before even touching the fixture knew the problem- i'd not left any clearance hole to put the screw or screwdriver through to access the installation point. (Lesson 3, as noted in video and by others: think about installation and manufacturing) The guys had a good chuckle as they walked off to break after informing me they'd already brought me the drill and bits-- nothing to humble you quite like having to maul your sleek new fixture because you missed something so basic. After that, I spent a lot more time in the maintenance bays and in the machinists shop learning about fabrication and maintenance methods.
Absolutely this. I started my engineering education because I worked in manufacturing and I saw too much of this :)
You gotta communicate/be friends with the people making your stuff.
My father gave me many lessons he learned being a CNC Programmer/Manufacturing Engineer in the Defense and Aerospace industry. One of the big ones was to learn as much from your fabricators as you can, and use that to make their jobs easier. He'd spend an hour programming a chamfer on a part, just so it wouldn't become a hand operation the machinist would have to do. It really reduced the total time per part, even if it lengthened the time in the mill.
He'd also pour over vendor catalogs for stock cutter shapes for the machines. This let him use one specialty cutter to do a profile in 45 seconds, instead of doing it in 8 minutes with a standard ball end mill.
His biggest lesson: don't hoard knowledge. Sharing it makes everyone more valuable, and helps foster a more open working culture that's fun to be in.
Always listen to the guys on the floor. They might not have the right ideas everytime, but they are the ones that get their hands dirty an know how things work in the real world. Arrogance (not calling you arrogant) by thinking you are superior because you wear a shirt and have a degree gets you absolutely no where.
Similar experience when I was in high school helping my Dad repair a lathe. We spent hours removing parts and pulling off one gear after another to get to the one broken piece at the head end., just inside of the access opening on that side. He pointed that if only the engineer had made this access cover a fraction of an inch larger, we could have removed this part from this end instead. Basically, the engineer made the cover slightly smaller than the part and so it was useless for anything other than to observe how much additional work the repair would take.
Project a virtual " reasonable access" cylinder/cone from all your fasteners to the outer bounding box of the finished assembly and look for collisions. I sometimes do one model with the regular fasteners and one where I replace them with a fastener that has the cone on top. This will really help visualise and snag access issues while you're still working digital. You can also use the shapes to cut geometry or make assembly drawings.
The assembler is the first user of your product.
One idea that I learned in bridge engineering: never have the "adjacent" sizes of bolts or rebar in a job. That is, either use the same size everywhere (so long as it's not too wasteful) or use big jumps in sizes so it's very obvious if something goes in undersized. A 7/8" bolt shouldn't be used on a job where 1" bolts are also spec'd becuase they can look identical and you'll end up with undersized bolts where they don't belong.
Or conversely some 250-pound gorilla reaming a 1" bolt through a 7/8" hole while cursing the fabricator for "getting it wrong" :)
@@danielscott4514 oh my god ive fucked up a good bolt for nothing
this reminds me of a story of a previous mechanic at the shop I work at. He was changing the timing chain on a motor, and one of the bolts had a couple mm longer shoulder, which was noted in the manual, but he wasn't going by the manual, so when it came time to reassemble the cover, he put a bolt with a shorter shoulder in the hole, and it got too tight and cracked the timing cover in half. ended up costing an extra $300 for a simple mistake.
Not to mention that odd sizes, like 7/8, versus 3/4 or 1” are MUCH more expensive than standard sizes
Or using metric and imperial interchangeably. I get on some parts it’s a given obstacle, but don’t do it if you don’t have to. As an assembler, I have spent too much time testing a quarter inch hole only to find it’s actually 6mm.
Great video! 30 year ME here with a son who is a college senior studying ME. I am 100% sending this video to him! My contribution to the list is to always be aware of dissimilar materials in direct contact that can produce galvanic corrosion problems. It's often overlooked.
Having worked in aviation 44 yrs galvanic corrosion is a real problem. A lot of sealants are tried to reduce the damage. They are difficult to apply perfectly and require extensive cleanup and a lot of waste plus they are not cheap. In many cases to break the electrical circuit between the 2 (electrolysis) is as simple as using mylar, x-ray or photo film etc.
Dude, how old are you?
Ford uses aluminum bolts to hold the transfer case to the transmission just for this reason.
Mechanical Design Engineer here: One tip I find really helps when I'm designing manufacturing equipment is to start my model by bringing in all the items I know won't change, as early as possible. Existing equipment/infrastructure, product, floorplans etc. And once I have a concept for the process in mind (developed on paper usually), I bring in as many of the stock parts as I can, so actuators, sensors, bearings etc. Capture your constraints in the model this way. Once you have all the "non-negotiables" visible in the design, then start creating very basic geometry. Call it a "minimum viable model" at this stage. It saves a lot of heartbreak when you realize early on that you will need to alter your design, rather than at the tail end of the modelling process when you will have to burn a lot of detailed work to change anything.
I'm not an engineer but I'm currently taking a precision machining course and product design has always been interesting to me. When I read your comment I realised that I had actually learned that same design flow from a game called Space Engineers where the main goal is to make creative solutions to problems.
I recently built a mining vehicle that would be primarily used inside of a canyon with steep walls so it had to be able to dig horizontally without tipping over (wide wheel base and low center of gravity), the wheels had to be able to carry the weight of the ore and climb hills (more wheels under the heaviest part), and the drill arm had to be articulate enough to reach the ore while still being able to collect the ore that was dug (rotors and hinges, only some of which come with conveyors equipped meaning I had to use special pieces).
The drilling arm was the most complicated and had the most constraints so I built that first and worked down the list of "non-negotiables" as you put it. I design all my stuff this way and I hadn't really thought about that much until now.
Another important thing I've learned from Space Engineers is "ease of use". I could make a mining arm that can reach anything you want, but it's going to be so complicated to control it that you'll never want to use it. On the drill I compromised by having a switch for each joint on the arm that reversed the direction it moves, and a switch that stops it. The parts move slowly to reduce the chance of crashing the arm and it only requires 9 buttons to use. Two for each joint, that's six buttons there. Two to extend/retract the drills that's eight there. One button to turn the drills on and off again makes 9. That fits on the number line on your keyboard neatly.
There's a million features I could add but they'd bog down control and make it a chore to use and they're just not required to do the job.
@@lol2Dlol a "game" teaching good engineering practices, FANTASTIC !
Reminds me of Leggos being used at MIT for Robotics classes !
I wish people enjoyed solving scientific challenges, more than just 'Blowing Stuff Up'
@@solosailorsv8065 Blowing stuff up is cool, but the fun for me is figuring out how I can make it more complicated!
Very good advice. This somewhat translates to software development too.
Sounds like identifying constraints. Like the lawn mowing problem.
Of course in a manufacturing setting these constraints are softer than you might think.
I mean yeah in general you are going to want to work around that column but if you you can justify why moving that column is the right choice long term, it might just get moved.
One lesson that I learned the hard way as a young engineer: Avoid irreversible operations. Good machines can be disassembled. Good parts can be replaced. Good fasteners can be unfastened.
It’s not always possible but it should always be preferred.
YES!
When I worked is auto body repair, often times the absolute worst things to repair were anything behind a door panel or in the rear quarter panels… why? Because you break so many fasteners trying to open it up. Each manufacturer had different ones a lot of the time, and you’d be scrolling through catalogs trying to find these damn plastic clips, or weird metal crimps or whatever… we could be long done with the repair, bondo, paint, ordered and replaced new window motors and still just waiting on a few damn chunks of plastic. It was the absolute worst. Then you get yelled at for taking too long and you try to explain why everything is done and we can’t just buy the stupid screws at ace hardware! !
You should never have to break something to take it apart…. I wish more companies took this seriously.
I think it's called "design for disassembly". A big thing in architecture now.
Exactly!
One of the things that has always bugged me immensely is when a roll pin is used in a "blind hole" instead of a "through hole" so it can't be drifted out in the future if the need arises. 😵
A true but somewhat ironic response to a video sponsored by an adhesive company
For sure! As I've moved deeper and deeper into modifying and designing cars, I've reaised how important this is.
Sure, putting a certain hose or filtering this spot will make it fit and keep it simple, but will it mean you have to amor remove the engine when it came time to service? Do you need to custom make a part, when there's a standard but slightly less facy part available? Because being able to just go to a shop, buy a replacement and fit it easily makes a huge difference to the whole experience.
Doing things right, building for disassembly and serviceability is complicated and takes longer but extra time in the design and prototype phase is quicky fogotten 2 years Dow the line when you're removing a turbo for the 3rd time 'cause that's the only way to change the damn oil filter 😅
I've been a mechanical engineer for nearly 30 years and the advice in this video is spot on. One in particular at 10:25 is perfect. There is often a line between machinists and engineers where machinists talk s**t about engineer's not knowing what they're doing. Talking to machinists, tapping their knowledge, and including them in the design process will gain you HUGE credibility and respect.
I've worked on machinery designed by engineers which is why engineers get that treatment.
Theoretically, the repair job when it's needed should be 'simple' but that is rarely the case when things have been 'designed' to be impossible to work on.
Another thing I want to mention: in my career as an engineer, I FIANLLY learned to have someone else build the prototypes once the engineering model was completed. This led to MANY design improvements because the person(s) building the prototypes thought of ways to make things easier to put together and even in some cases suggested redesign of some components to reduce assembly time or reduce the number of tools required. Just mad at myself that it took years for me to make this discovery.
Tech transfer is super useful for this kind of "fuzzing" in any kind of field where there is a process. Even just having someone from your department who isn't savvy on your particular stack.
I think of this as akin to the productive conflict of "writer" vs "editor" You need that dispassionate second perspective to point out the confusing and vague bits before you turn it loose on the world!
All engineers should have a good relationship with their fabricators. We can help you shine like a diamond in a goat's butt! Or not.
Recently I got some spare time and took up a CAD program - I started answering many other 'user' questions and problems on the forum - I now reckon I know and use the program like nobody else! This probably comes under the banner of 'Many heads are better than one'
16:10 "Buy off the shelf parts"
My advice. Whenever possible, use duplicate parts. It's way easer to build a machine that uses 30 screws all of the same length, then 20 screws each with a slightly different length.
THIS, THIS RIGHT HERE! Even in software engineering and web scale engineering, this is HIGH on my list of engineering mantra's. Cloud computing is ALL about this. Yes custom configured computers could run the database and the caching layer better, but the operation, maintenance, and deployment hit is just not worth it until you have prooven performance really requires a custom part. Mechanical engineering, design everything to use a 10mm M4 bolt or a 10mm hex head bolt. Only vary your fastener IF and only IF you _really_ need the extra length, or width. Hey, instead of one big bolt, how about 2 M4 bolts? Sometimes an increase in part count of commodity parts is CHEAPER that varied parts. this also makes assembly MUCH easier/faster/cheaper and makes repairability MUCH easier. Excellent example of this: the PRUSA Mk3 3d printer.
I'm a service technician that works on agricultural tractors and equipment. We have some models that require removing several screws to access the fuse and relay panel. (first mistake, it should take zero tools to access these) three are #2 Phillips head and one is a T27 Torx.
The same tractors have a cover on the steering column that has 4 T27 Torx screws. Two of them require a long reach bit, two require a very short bit and a ratcheting handle to remove. The less stuff I have to tote up to the cab to get something done the better for me and the customer whis paying dearly for my services..
I could go on and on about about all of the stuff that could have been easy with just a minor change here and there.
Should’ve told that to the engineers of the F-35
As a customer I AGREE 100%!!!!!!!!! Nothing like trying to put together some fancy furniture and trying to figure out the difference between screw A and C.
@@jimnaden5594 God that sounds awful. I remember changing our car's water pump. Removing the serpentine belt was a pain on it's own. But to get at the pump itself required the removal of a few brackets and even an engine mount. All in a space barley wide enough to fit a tool, let alone your hand. (Not fun)
I’ve been a “new product design engineer” for 15 years and your hitting on a lot of the good points. I noticed too that you never said “good at math” I feel like that’s a pitfall for people getting into engineering (because they’re good at math). You mentioned it briefly, but I’d also emphasize that people skills are paramount, being able to understand a clients fears or the ability to lead those around you through a challenging time is immensely valuable. Great video Jeremy!
Jermey, for a video that is 20+ mins, keeping your audience engaged while not wasting their time with ‘filler’ is rare. Your skills as an engineer/maker are quite remarkable and your ability to share this through this type of media (of which your production value is spot on IMHO…. Not underdone, or overdone; it is ubiquitous without being salient) is just as impressive. Your engagement with the next generation of engineers, makers, or just the average DIYer is greatly appreciated. This particular video should be referenced as a benchmark for those who wish to teach and share through this medium.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video and look forward to more, and without getting too overly dramatic thank you for taking the time to share, humanity needs more of this.
Second tip: get good at arguing.
Know when you're wrong, be able to identify something better. Get good at explaining how something works, or why something doesn't work. You don't need to be a jerk about it. When talking to non technical groups it is very helpful if you can use something they know to describe something they do not yet know.
Explaining something to non-technical groups is an extremely important skill to develop. So much can be lost in translation when they don't understand the problem you are describing. If you can humbly explain and not bore you will be an asset to the team.
@@Jeremy_Fielding I once made the mistake of explaining an oxygen sensor in excruciating detail to my sister in law. In my defense, she did ask what one did.
@@lousypirate Ha ha ha! 😄
If someone asks me about something I geek out on I know I better watch for when their eyes glaze over or they start to grimace.
It's not often I see someone lean in to a conversation about composites or propellant chemistry.....
@@jimurrata6785 it’s not rocket science
@@lousypirate Except when it _IS!_ 🤣
As a welder, i'm blown away by the 'hammer-stress-test' you put out there. Full-on Newton jump smash and it still wouldn't move! No ad would look as real.
Just discovered the channel and i'm in. Very nice flow and inspiring share of wisdom.
I was pretty impressed also. This stuff seems to be strong.
Indeed, that 'ultra two handed mega full body flex power jump giga smash' was worth any amount locktite paied
I agree. But I wonder (doubt) it would hold up if he rotated the sample 90 degrees and tried again. Loctite probably wouldn't sponsor that 😀
I think you missed the point LOL. Loctite has published the engineering strength data for this adhesive. You can find details in the description. The video was just to give you a feel for it’s strength. Engineers would use that data for decisions not a random hammer test :)
@@Jeremy_Fielding isn't the hammer test the verification that the data is accurate?
As a software developer, something that you mentioned - and I'll second - and can be applied to pretty much any field is Empathy. If you design with empathy for the assembler, the end user and your company, you should yield high quality products. Thanks for the great video!
amen to that!!!
Well said - so right you are!! Thanks !
Yes! Empathy in design isn't just about making your product accessible to the user, it's also in making sure other people can work on it easily, it can be maintained, repaired or improved and that the way it works is well documented and clear.
As a fellow dev, spending an extra few minutes making sure you've got clear comments for each function (what does it receive, what does it do and what does the output look like), clear and descriptive commit messaging and refactoring to hit that balance between ultra condensed, elegant code and code that a human could actually read makes a huge difference to everybody involved, including future you when you come back on a Monday and try to pick up where you left off 😂 ask me how I know...
@@helplmchoking you're absolutely on point. Empathy for future you or other devs is not just a good idea but the best of them.
I recently had an issue on a school bus that I converted into a motorhome. We had to take the radiator off of the bus. There is a giant access door in the side to the air-to-air intercooler but guess what? Neither that or the radiator can comene out through that access door by a matter of half-inch (that is a 20 something x 20 something inch opening). No empathy for thr person who will service the equipment. The bus has to be lifted so they can slide from underneath. Or an Audi A8 that has to drop the whole engine cradle in order for an alternator to be replaced. Someone obviously only thought about packaging and nothing else.
Thank you for your comment, it adds several layers of empathy!
Could add Longevity too!
In response to understand your constraints, also remember if your design starts to require more and more complexity be willing to start over. After attempting a solution once often starting over you see the pitfalls earlier and can design away from them so they don’t end up baked in the design.
Over refining during designing seems to crop up a lot- a horrible waste of time. Nice call out about byte-gobbling eye-candy.
Roger this is so bang on. All of the things I've designed/built that I'm happy with are things I designed COMPLETELY at least twice and they all got simpler with each iteration.
It's called the sunken cost falicy. So often we are not willing to lose a dime to save a dollar.
And question requirements and constraints. Quite often they are unnecessarily strict, outdated or plain unnecessary.
@@Mike-oz4cv This.
New husband to bride: 'Why do you cut the end off the roast before you cook it, dear?'
Bride: 'I don't know; Mom always did it that way. I'll ask her. Mom, why?'
Mom: 'Uhhh...Grammy always did it that why...I'll ask her. Why, Grammy?'
Grammy: Because we were poor and had only one roasting pan, and the roast wouldn't fit!'
Conditions may change over time; outdated or misunderstood customs and traditions can lead to paralysis.
After retiring from over 50 years in Machine shops, CNC work, and Network Administration, 2 things stuck in my head. #1 I learned in a network class. " Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should" #2 I learned that if someone says "something is impossible". it actually means they just don't know how- yet. Keep up the good work.
Love this, Jeremy. You're a natural born teacher, and it shows. I retired as a pipeline engineer after 40 great years with the same company. I never went to college - barely graduated highschool. Got on with a gas company as a janitor, then got "promoted" to helping an old welder clean his materials. The engineers would bring him drawings of stations to build, most of which just depressed the heck out of him. They were fine drawings, but they didn't understand the work. So one day I took a complicated measuring station and redesigned it based upon what I knew we would do anyway. The welder liked it, so I did another, and another... Eventually the senior engineer found out what I was doing. But rather than get mad, he asked if I would like to try one from scratch. I did, and the rest is history. They moved me out of the weld shop and into a cubicle. A decade later I had a corner office with windows.
I guess the point is one that you made: know what the machinists want. Know how they work. I had the luxury of being the only engineer that was operator qualified to actually get down and dirty. I never drew up a project, large or small, where in some way I didn't get my hands dirty. I know, not every engineer is blessed with that gift, and that's a shame. At least learn what it is the guys do to your designs, what they like to see on the page. Thanks, Jeremy, for this video. I'm sharing it with my third grade robotics team.
That's a beautiful story sir. You did what you thought was right and you got rewarded with a good career for it.
I'm happy and inspired by your words. Thank you.
From a janitor to a engineer without paying any academia getting paid! Great story but that would never fly today
@@Parnell50 he did it all at one company that is rare too, now.
Great inspiring story!
@@Parnell50 sorry to disagree with you. See, this is where you, as many of the young engineer, are wrong. Is not the paper that says that you are an engineer, is how you use your knowledge that says what you are. I don't want to offend anyone but the biggest error that most of the "new engineers" do, is to think that after some years of studies they are an ME. Between the theoretical knowledge and reality is a big gap which can be filled only after "getting dirty". Or, how i like to say: only on computer a line is horizontal, in reality never is. Mastering both sides of the problem, anyone can be an engineer without the need of a piece of paper. Speaking from experience.
I always tell people that good engineers are not necessarily the smartest people, they are just the people willing to struggle through trying to solve a problem the longest with out giving up.
That said, some of us are pretty damn smart ;)
Nick h :: as a mechanic once told me, “I’m not paid to fix stuff. I’m paid to have the patience to accomplish the goal, whatever that takes. ‘Doing my best’ is not the point!”
By doing so they become smarter everyday.
By doing so they become smarter everyday.
as a software engineer i can confirm this, its like i tell people, I aint intelligent, I'm just a dumb man working hard to be smart
Heard a story many years ago about the cost of tolerances. During world war two, there was a drawing for a tank body casting that specified the location of a particular hole with a tolerance of 1/4" from nominal center. Lots of tank bodies got scrapped because that hole was out of spec. An efficiency review found that since that hole was for a flexible hose, it could be three inches off in any direction with no issues.
Judicial use of tolerance is a huge issue. I am an ME and have owned 2 machine shops, and have seen so many problems that were driven by thoughtless use of "Unless Otherwise Specified" tolerances. One fabricator I worked with had a sheet metal customer that spec'd +/- .002" for all their hole locations. For his manual shop, that made them $20 holes, vs $2 holes if at +/- .010".
@@fburtt CNC has really exacerbated this. I used to spend a lot of time on GD&T, but later realized that everything was going to be executed at the maximum room-temperature performance of whatever machine it was on. Unless you were calling for something truly demanding that took you into special temperature controlled machines or something, the CNC would just about always satisfy the tolerances by a large margin. BUT, when engineers get this ingrained and then send something to a different process, you can end up with wildly inappropriate callouts.
You tolerances are right they they are 1. As big as possible and 2. and tight as absolutely needed.
"It's hard, but that's your job."
Truer words have never been spoken.
I often say, "if it was easy they wouldn't be hiring us to do it."
Also, "SHUT UP AND TAKE IT LIKE AN ENGINEER"
If it was easy, someone else would be doing it.
In University, we had an Intro CAD course. We spent half the semester just learning how to sketch on paper well. So many people skip the sketching phase before going into CAD. Being able to sketch well has been extremely beneficial in my current engineering internship. Great video!
A further benefit of getting a really good grasp on being able to sketch are the many times you will go to or be on a job site and need to take measurements or make a diagram of how something operates, or even what shape a part may need to be and a simple picture may not be enough. I have had hundreds of times over the years that a few simple sketches has saved my bacon once I got back to the office... Sketches are also invaluable to be able to further describe an idea to onsite personnel, whether that be builders, installers, or even maintenance... I am not that great at organic shapes but I can lay out nice and clear diagrams of an electrical or mechanical nature. You **WILL** face times where you have nothing more than paper and pencil to get your ideas down. tablets and phones will run out of power at the most inopportune times. Learn how to sketch!!
Absolutely. People get attached to CAD models and are less willing to throw them out. A paper sketch is much easier to throw out making it less likely that you'll drag bad ideas through the design process
Ah I had that same experience at Kansas state. My handwriting also drastically improved after learning engineering scrypt
An additional SW speed tip for McMaster parts: in addition to everything you said, ALSO go into the Document Properties tab and go to Image Quality. Crank that lower until you can't stand how blocky the part looks. You will conserve tons of triangles that way. McMaster parts always come in with that quality cranked way up. As that setting is a *document* setting, it will only affect that individual part file in an assembly. My point is, you can leave more triangles (higher quality) for the custom parts you design, and also limit the quality on the purchased parts.
This video could be on a “Satisfying for engineers” compilation.
Doesn’t matter the kind of engineer. I’m an electrical engineer, but the basics of everything in this video was correct, informative, and immensely satisfying to hear said out loud.
Regarding 'off the shelf', another quote I try to work by is that a good engineer invents as little as possible
Yes a good engineer is lazy, but not when it matters
I use ASAP paraphrase for that: As Simple As Possible
aka: Never engineer what you can negotiate.
Talking to the guys in the field is 100% the best way to become a better designer/engineer.
To avoid cross threading when screwing together fine threads always start by turning in the opposite dierction and then screw in when the parts click as the thread ends clear. Great video. Great tip on the loctite design guide.
I generally avoid fine threads unless it is critical to the design. They are often messed up by machinists, maintenance often doesn’t have replacements on hand and they are cross threaded far too often. In most circumstances course threads are fine.
I learned this from soda bottles. It has been incredibly helpful in that I have never crossed any threads. Although I have had to explain a few too many times that I do actually understand "righty-tighty lefty-loosey".
I've always done since a youngin'. Learned from disassembling plastic toys held together by self tapping screws
It pisses me off when people see me doing this and think I'm just turning it the wrong way because this is the superior way to start any threaded object.
As a designer, if you're going to be using fine threads and you have the space to do so, put a bit of unthreaded straight hole above the thread to guide the fastener into place. Saves so much pain in getting fine threads started.
"I don't know but I'll find out" is incredibly valuable in my field, software engineering. A developer who can't say that, who can't admit they don't know something immediately? They're a huge liability. I've known several with this problem - their ego doesn't let them admit they don't know something, so project managers have no idea that there's a research cost to account for. Not to mention having a faux-expert-at-everything feeds into the imposter syndrome of everybody else on the team.
Be the person who can admit ignorance while being confident in your ability to figure it out.
A programmer doesn't come to a job knowing how to do it all. He comes to it with a big mental toolkit that often includes knowing MOST of how to do it. But it ALWAYS includes ways to find out or figure out those other parts he didn't already know.
A programmer is a special kind of lazy. He'd rather spend two days figuring out how to do something, once, than spend half an hour doing it twice.
This. A thousand times this. If I'm interviewing an applicant and they try to BS me instead of saying "I'm not familiar with that, but this is how I'd find out" there is 0% chance they're getting hired. As you said, they are both a liability and toxic to others.
@@UnlikelyToRemember this also seems to be something that a lot of junior engineers suffer from; I personally felt like admitting ignorance early in my career meant I missed something in my education and I was a fraud (see imposter syndrome). But if senior engineers model the healthy attitude, juniors grow out of it really quickly and everybody is happier for it. Another reason that mentorship is really important and it is sad that it is often overlooked; juniors who don't grow out of it and become know-it-all seniors are dangerously toxic.
A corollary to that is to know when you should say, "I can't really add to that." I.e. adding me to the team or the discussion won't add value to the outcome. Particularly, junior engineers, as well as those who for any other reason don't feel secure in their jobs, will have trouble admitting either that they can't add value right now, because they don't know the answer, or that the outcome would not be improved with their input. People naturally have the instinct to protect their livelihood, and it's up to those who ARE secure and/or higher up in the organization to find ways to alleviate the insecurities that lead to so many counterproductive behaviors. For us knowledge workers, I agree--practice saying "I don't know but I'll find out." Or alternatively, "Let me look into that. I'll get back to you." As long as you actually do follow up in a timely manner, and aren't just BS-ing, it's a good practice.
I wish governments could do the same lol, world peace!
content creators and advertisers take note: this is how you do an ad read. A guy who actually likes your products talking about using it pre-sponsorship with GOOD explanation on why they're great
good video, too. lots of things I hadn't thought about - not that I'll ever be in the position to make professional use of the tips, I just love learning what different industries consider "best practices"
HIGHLY recommend the book "The design of everday things". It teachs a lot about how to approach the desig process, especially from a human interaction perspective.
Thank you!
By Donald Norman right?
@@silvervortex2441 Yup. Just checked my copy.
Great recommendation, I second that! Absolutely love that book.
been reccomended this about 8 times now, may have to finally get it.
My tip for everyone is to initially break the object or machine you want to design down as much as possible, so that it is only described by it's base function. Then think about how this fuction can be archieved. Next go over what is required for those functions. This way you get a list of necessities and critical components for which you have to accomodate in your design.
I hate to admit it, but cable management in some of my previous projects was an afterthought.
And for working in CAD: Keep shapes simple for as long as possible. The longer you wait to add rounded edges or cosmetic freatures, the easier it will be to reference faces, edges and corners and it will save you time and nerves. (there are exceptions ofc)
Cable management is always an afterthought and it kills me to see it. Great comments on basic functions and reduce cosmetic features.
Another thing, as he kind of pointed to in the video, but it bears repeating: break down the "base function" into smaller, simpler pieces of base functions. The "base function" of a lawn mower could be described as "cut the grass" but that isn't really helpful. The more breaking down you do, the more freedom you can give yourself in designing creative solutions.
Some explicit examples of this “breaking down” would be helpful. Someone gave an example of “cutting grass” as a an example of how not to do it. Can you now take that same example and give the correct way to break down “cutting grass”? Thanks.
Along with having to design cable management I found similar areas touching on electrical engineering such as panel layout and connector selection that I found my colleagues in that discipline seemed to not do well.
Keeping the "pretty" out of CAD until the last minute also helps when you almost inevitably have to scrap it and design something new. The time you didn't spend on those extra features can now go towards the redesign.
Excellent tips! I'm a mechanical engineer and I've found it really helpful to remember the Rule of Pi: actual completion time = (estimated completion time) * Pi. This rule will give you a more realistic time estimate and help with budgeting time. Everything takes longer than you think it will (and Pi is an irrational number).
Excellent Jeff, I use Pi for cost estimating and field retrofit installation too. It is the magic number!
3.14.............~¿
I probably need to use this, things always take me way longer
Really 3.141 times longer. That's very generous. I guess it's all relative to your original estimate of finish time. Or if you put time in for mistakes and changes, lead times on components, delays because of other firms having problems. Materials from the EU or China.
Pretty good multiplier for commercial work. But if you are dealing with a government project at least use 2pi. The only time my partner and I got the initial budget right, was when we took his estimate added my estimate and multiplied it by four.😀
YES!! ~ " Talk to a machinist, welder or fabricator" Very important, if they can't make your part efficiently, all you have is a pretty model.
YES! 👍👍
When studying industrial design, the one thing that was stressed by every professor was that if you weren't talking to the experts in the various disciplines, you weren't doing your job. That includes the end user, too, if you can swing it. As a software developer (yeah, I don't actually do the industrial design stuff), I have found that the end user a lot of times doesn't even really understand what they want or need. They just have "pain". So by talking to them to understand that pain, doing fast and simple iterations, increases your chance of success tremendously. I realize you cannot just prototype everything in the real world, such as bridges, like you can with software, but you can certainly make digital models and simple models to help users visualize what is happening. A common material for making fast model for industrial design is the pink/blue insulation foam board. A little bit of foam and a couple of sticks and you can mock up some really complex ideas fast to help visualize how things fit (or don't) together.
Great video. Sorry for the rambling.
The end user is really overlooked in tech, ironically. I'm a systems engineer, and most of my peers over the years have the attitude of, "This is the solution I designed, and the end users are going to use it". My most successful projects have started with identifying the pain points the end user is experiencing, how it's affecting their workflow, and how it's affecting their team or business unit. I'll sit down with the primary user and have them show me their workflow and explain why the current solution isn't cutting it, or what _they_ think would make it better. They're the expert at their job - not me. _Then_ I get to work coming up with a solution to their problem. I'll be back in-touch with say, a manager or lead, and ask them for go/nogo on workflows that off-the-shelf solutions may provide and work through it. Like Jeremy said with purchasing precision 'jellybean' parts, the same goes for off-the-shelf software implementations if it ticks all the boxes.
It takes time to care and do the groundwork for these projects. Sure, it may be a bit more expensive with regard to your time, but if your forced implementation/bad solution wastes the time of an entire department or business, that's a lot more expensive than your time was alone.
You're definitely spot on, no need to apologize for rambling. I did ID studies too and definitely our primary directive was to question the basic assumption of just making a better toaster when people ask for a better toaster.
That all said, they also in cases would remind us that often when you're working for a company that makes toasters you need to continue making toasters while you invent the thing that replaces the toaster; and that sometimes it's important to deliver a good version of what the market expects from you. Additionally, brand new solutions have a lot of primary ground to cover while an incremental update is often riding on a well worn path of progress and that in the real production environment it requires time to transition to novel products in the market.
To go back to the lawn mower example from the video, just because lets say John Deere invents some new electro drone grass maintenance machine that uses advanced trimming methods to maintain even and regular grass heights, doesn't mean they stop producing classic ride-on tractors, or even push mowers, for those who still have that as their preferred solution to the problem.
There is still good design and engineering to be done in the space of incremental improvement, even in the face of major new technological breakthroughs.
The end user is overlooked by all disciplines. As a 71 year old end user, mechanic, IT guy, software user, tinkerer, repairman, improvisor, troubleshooter, problem solver, you get the idea, I have always wanted to know if the designer ever went outside in an unfamiliar setting and actually used their product. Or if they gave their product to their grandmother to use with no help other than what was in the box. Or they gave their product to the average guy on the street. Again, you get the idea. And the worst part in the process is once the product hits the shelf there is no possible way to realistically send feedback upstream. Even there ask your grandmother to let the company know what needs to be done for her to use the product and sit back and watch. I see where the lawyers have destroyed things (gas cans) and accountants (fasteners) and I get it. I have installed aircrew egress systems that the end user couldn't give feedback if there was poor workmanship. I designed the very first Very High Pressure gas lift well in the Gulf of Mexico where potentially $millions could be lost if a failure occurred. That is just to say I recognize and appreciate things that work and irritated when they consistently don't. Now I'm rambling, sorry.
Can I ask why you're not doing ID work anymore? I hope it's not too personal but being a student I have some concerns that perhaps you agree with.
@@s4n714g000 Not too personal. I have been part of software development for over 30 years. I took the ID classes as a returning adult several years ago with the idea of changing careers. However, I couldn't figure out how to get into a new field without literally cutting my salary in half or more. That didn't appeal to me. So even though I never was officially an industrial designer, a LOT of the fundamental design skills I picked up were readily transferable to software development. Overall, I think it made me better at designing software and building a quality product.
I’m a fresh out of college mechanical design engineer. Been working full time for about four months and let me tell you just actively listening to the workers and operators on the floor makes a world of difference. Those men and women know that processing better than anyone else and so their thoughts and advice should be heard. Don’t put yourself above them. You have a different skill set but you’re working towards the same goal. And when those workers know you’re willing to listen and work with them, they’ll come to you with issues on the floor over the other engineer who blows them off which helps you maintain a steady workflow. I’ve been actively working on these skills myself and the guys I work with are sometimes so grateful to be listened to that they put down what ever they’re doing to shake my hand and thank me. So be a team player and keep working hard towards your goals:)
I'm not even an engineer, and I watched this from start to finish and learned things I can apply to my work.
You're a fascinating guy to listen to, thanks for sharing your knowledge
Small tip… When making drawings for parts with holes (especially tapped holes), don’t just call out the drill diameter. Add the actual drill size (“#21”, “W, “13/16”, etc.) to the drawing so the machinist can grab the right drill without having to stop to look at a chart.
or even better, use metric. because you need a 13mm drill to make a 13mm hole 😂
@@flosch5444 I like metric too, but there's still value to calling out the drill sizes.Try using a 5mm drill for an M5 tapped hole and you'll see what I mean.
@@CoWolArc just use metric
@@STORMY-lv9lr I use metric most of the time, but it still helps to call out extra details. For example, many drawings just say to tap M5 without telling you what drill to use. An M5 bolt is nominally 5mm, but the tap drill needs to be 4.2mm.
@@CoWolArc don't forget the other direction - clearance holes can vary in size too.
My two favorite tricks: first, try to have a sort of standard parts assortment that you use for as much stuff as possible. Keeping your inventory simple keeps costs down...if you need a 10 amp, a 12 amp, a 15 amp, and an 18 amp MOSFET, there's basically zero reason why you can't use an 18 amp MOSFET in all those roles. Buy a much larger quantity of one part and there's a really good chance it'll all work out cheaper. Worst case, try to make them interchangeable so that if you / your fab shop run(s) out of the smaller one you can substitute the larger one and not stop production while you wait on that part to show up.
Second, the crowbar circuit. This is old school electrical engineering at its finest. Say you're designing a PCB that runs on DC, such as the 3d printer motherboard I'm playing with now. It's meant to run on 24vdc, and the buck regulator can handle up to 30. Reverse voltage and overvoltage will likely let the magic smoke out. So there's a large, reverse biased diode just behind the main fuse; in parallel with it is a large TVS or zener diode. If someone connects power backwards or connects it to too much voltage it'll basically put a dead short across the fuse and blow it before the bad input voltage destroys anything important. It's a 5¢ fuse that can be replaced in all of 10 seconds after you realize what you did wrong. Heck of a lot cheaper than replacing eight stepper drivers and a buck regulator.
This is super useful!
You had better quit that talking about standardization! Those 18 amp MOSFET cost the company an extra $.12! Some supervisor is going to veto that because he can run to his manager and say, "Look, boss! I am saving the company money." And when the shop runs out of the 12 amp, he will blame you for not standardizing them all..
oh cool i literally did that (with those voltages too) on a project last month
though when working with polarity sensitive stuff just use XT30 or other reverse polarity "protected" connectors
@@jakobohnimus5234 The issue with connectors like that is that unless your product is supplying both ends of the connector they will just get cut off. I can’t tell you how many batteries etc I have purchased where I just cut off the connectors. XT is not common, cheap or convenient. You can’t buy it locally in most places as well. If your connections are between parts you designed then there is a good chance they will be used. But if they are meant for separate peripherals unless it is a very common standard it won’t be utilized.
Best piece of advice I was given when prototyping is don't be afraid to make "Ugly" components until you get everything working. Work on the function of the part first up. The aesthetics can always be improved in the next revision.
fit and function first, then form :)
When I was in engineering school I was one of the few students that had a machining background. I noticed that the other guys didn't know much about designing something that could actually be manufactured AND assembled. Even I had some weaknesses there when it came to designing a machine with many little parts and making sure all the tolerances were good. I think a video specifically on tolerances would be very helpful for a lot of people.
Also if your design needs bearings try to figure out which ones you are going to use early on because their size will be another constraint you have to deal with. Same things goes for anything else you are buying such as motors for example.
Agreed on the tolerances. Getting designers to do tolerance stackup calculations and tradeoffs was always a struggle, no matter which discipline we're talking about.
Spend as much time on the shop floor as you do at your desk.
Get the shop floor to look at how and why you design things the way you do.
Saves so much hate and frustration on both sides.
So true. Tolerances can be the top driver of cost and delays. An arbitrarily chosen clearance or tolerance could result in many failures to assemble or 10x part cost. This is where an understanding of manufacturing capabilities and limitations (or consulting the experts) can make a difference.
This is such a great collection of tips! Relevant to so many fields. I appreciate your approach to teaching!
In my 20 plus years of designing and building one of the hardest learnt lessons: When you're stuck or slowing down at designing/drawing. Stop. Take a walk. Rest or sleep. Do an activity that occupies your mind and body, like juggle or throw darts. Your mind needs a break and its telling you that by blocking progress. Sometimes the solution needs to work in the background of your mind for a bit. Or you find the solution in some random thing you see on a walk. Or you literally need the processing power that sleep provides our brain. Pushing through blocks and tiredness will take much more time in the long run, and you may not get there! All the good designers I've met have some sort of practice like this (even if they don't realize it) and its crucial to their success!
From designing heavy equipment - "how will they pick it up?" Lifting holes, lugs, etc are awesome.
My other gotcha was always "how do you grease it?"
We must assume it will never be greased in the field. That shaft will wear clean through the bushing and deep into the base metal. It will then be run until the shaft cuts itself in two or binds up tight. Then the shop will get to fix it on a holiday weekend because we can’t have down time.
Not having lift point is a huge pet peeve of mine. Used to install skid sized industrial A/C units. At a couple hundred pounds and the top and sides being made from basically tinfoil, they were a nightmare to move. I had the opportunity to tour the plant they were made at once, after they asked for questions. I said "how do you expect us to move these things?" The entire engineering team was bewildered, at the plant they bolted them to, and assembled them directly on the custom pallets they shipped out on.
How do you grease it? Well, if you ask the companies that own the equipment that I work on, you don’t
Also, when maintenance is inevitably neglected, and a pin is seized in place, it sure is nice to be able to swing a hammer at it. I’m looking at you caterpillar
@@KonkeyDong96 that would cost an extra $0.27 no hammer swing room for you
Understand that there is a difference between how you talk about your own work and how you talk about others' work. I'm very self-critical and most of the engineers I know are also that way. But the words you would use about something if it was your product ("wrong," "broken," "dumb") are often not good choices for describing someone else's. In almost every case, it is both kinder and more efficient to use probing questions when you see flaws in a design--"what would happen if this went through heating and cooling cycles"--than to use your internal shorthand out loud. Once people's egos get implicated in design discussions everything gets slower and harder and more stressful.
If you find a problem, instead of pointing it out, ask "how will this deal with this situation". Sometimes, they found a solution you hadn't thought of (you can add that to your quiver). If not, it is a gentler way to get your point across.
@@stevesedio1656 Yes, exactly! And when you do the extra little bit of work to ask the question instead of just saying "that's wrong," you keep your own skills sharper. Because you can't just rely on "what you've always done" or "what someone told you"--it forces you to understand and apply the reasons for doing things.
If we all did this with everything in life the world would be a much better place.
And be prepared for the extremely touchy recipients that take any questions about their work as a personal attack.
@@towdispatch1897 How touchy would they be if their design blew up in the field?
For 40 years I had a cartoon next to my desk that had an Architect talking to a group of carpenters and saying "We are going to hollow out the 2 x 4s and put the nails on the inside, so the heads won't show". In the background were 3 more carpenters trying to bend an archway out of 4 x 4s. This always reminded me to be sure about the feasibility of methods and materials before you ask someone to build your design.
I've been a design engineering apprentice for a couple of years, and the most valuable thing I have learnt is proper communication. There are people who have been fabricating/assembling who have a huge amount of knowledge, and the difference between the good engineers and the great ones are the guys who go out and ask questions when they are designing something.
That scene with your daughter is priceless !!!! She IS going to be an engineer indeed.
Maybe not. Maybe astronaut.
This channel is awesome, I totally have that "I don't know but I am going to find out" attitude as a software engineer. I found myself always taking the hard projects that others did not want to do. If you are the kind of person who teaches themselves and loves to learn new things, that is the number 1 piece of advice right there. That attitude is what an engineer should have. I taught myself software engineering because I love to learn new things and make things in new ways with creativity. You can only learn so much in school, and in software, it is out of date really fast. You must keep learning to stay in the game.
In terms of the translation between engineering and manufacturing, remember that more work will need to be done to make tooling for mass production of the part than designing the part itself. Any way that you can reduce the number of operations and custom workholding solutions (like putting flats so a normal vise can grip a part) the more you can reduce the startup cost of mass production of a part.
I'm constantly amazed that engineers get to make calls on things they have never done. I always learn things from the piping and ducting installers when I talk with them.
Things a process engineer learned from his pipe installers:
If you have a valve or switch, make sure it is located within arm's reach. Also, make sure there is enough space around it to turn the valve.
While a 6" pipe might fit through a 6.5" hole, a 6" pipe with flange connections will not.
The minimum bend radius of a pipe will always be sacrificed in tight spaces.
Things located at chest level are significantly easier to work on than overhead or below the waist.
"While a 6" pipe might fit through a 6.5" hole, a 6" pipe with flange connections will not.
"
I bet that was fun to learn!
I was 40 years in the car business as a mechanic then manager. I was and am shocked that engineers don't spend more time with people in the trades. There were electronic ways to report issues but trying to speak with the engineer was like pulling teeth. However, when we did get a call from a concerned engineer the result was always mutually beneficial. Not to mention the lift it gives the tech that someone actually cares about our valuable input. Engineers, please listen to your techs out there. We are on your side and want to help.
@@mixer6166 Were you at a franchised dealer? I worked in powersports for a while, and our manufacturer was pretty good about dealer relations. We found an issue at our shop where a fuse would vibrate out and start arcing in one of the lighting accessories. Told them about it and shortly afterwards there was a service bulletin and a replacement kit for it. We never spoke to an engineer, probably because they speak Japanese anyway lol, but the service reps at corporate knew the machines pretty well. Apparently word got up to the right place. I think as long as you have good chains of communication that's the most important thing, especially when there's one engineer and a million dealers.
One of the most satisfying parts of my work in yacht-building is getting to speak directly with the guys who make the stuff I design. I really appreciate input which results in a smoother process and a better end product, and I hate finding out that they have struggled with something I could easily have designed differently if I'd known about the issue.
Hmmm... 6" sch40 pipe is 6.625" OD, so flanges or not, you need to design your piping system so you can get a good running start when trying to stuff it thru a 6.5" hole.
I'm just being a smart a**. Your point is completely valid.
The moment when your daughter steps in and says "that one looks better" and you say "And at that very moment, I knew she's gonna be an engineer..." is so sweet!
Mega thumbs up, man!
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said “stop that!” to engineers putting threaded and knurled and otherwise fancy pants parts in assemblies. Glad I’m not the only one.
Molex, for connectors is great as they have very detailed models that you can download (without registration, if I recall correctly). Unfortunately, they are *very* detailed models. Drop a few connectors into an assembly and suddenly your "part" count is a few hundred items--especially a pain when exporting STEP files to other tools.
Drives me nuts. I work in yacht-building, a lot of equipment suppliers provide 3D models of their products - unfortunately most are unusable because of excessive detail, so I end up having to model simple proxies myself. Perhaps their 3D guy had a blast modeling the embossed logos and individual balls in the bearings inside their winch, but his winch is only a very small part of what I'm doing.
@@grantm6514 I'll take all the extra detail any day as it allows me to better understand the assembly from the point of view of installation, function, access for servicing etc. but it's getting simplified before it goes in an assembly. Back in the day on ProEngineer for example, there's was a function called 'shrinkwrap' that turned assemblies into simple blocks with only outer surfaces showing. It allowed you to dig into the detailed assembly if required, but didn't load it into the assembly.
A manual version of this process is to make a block bigger than the assembly and assemble it over the original assembly, then cut the assembly parts (Or just the ones on the boundary) out of it, clean up small surfaces and cosmetic features and make a new part that occupies the cavity created in the block. It's also possible to export the outer surfaces of the assembly as, say IGES files, import and convert them to solid to create a block that avoids internal details but captures dimensions. With macros, it can be done pretty quickly even if the software doesn't have anything built in to help.
@@peglor That extra detail sometimes is utterly useless, i have no need to have an embossed part number on a nut on a bow shackle that will be purchased and used as a single unit. On the drawings there will be a proxy (dimensions and weight will be exact) and a reference to the part number as an object property that will have it's own tag. If i'm going to show 5mm embossed text on a scaled drawing for all small parts, it will be just one black blob of lines and bog down my printer and no-one will read it anyway.
Yep... Always tell people that threads are never to be modelled unless for practice/understanding.
I've long advocated that every design engineer ought to spend some time working hands-on in a repair shop before they start designing new products in that field.
... and every software engineer should do a stint in tech support.
All engineers need to think like you.
I've been a fitter for over 30 years and wrestled with communication issues with engineers. You are spot-on.
"I don't know yet but I'll figure it out" has been one of my mantras, too 😳 An easy way to assure busy people!
When you attach two dissimilar metals, along with thermal expansion, you have to consider electrolysis. It's amazing how fast a copper and aluminum structure can turn into a pile of green schmoo.
As a guy who used to work on boats which operate in an electrolyte solution this is frequently a problem. There are many parts which are supposedly designed for work boats, in which it's obvious that the person who designed it thought aluminum that's non-corrosive brass too! I'll just stick those together. And they make a little pretty battery that will turn into flaky crud over the course of a year or two.
I was going to post exactly this. "We" flooded a whole building once because of an aluminum heat exchanger connected to copper piping. Don't put two different metals together and put it in contact with water
@@lorenkaake2515 If you loctite instead of weld, I wonder if electrolysis is prevented...
@@TheRainHarvester Not for closed water systems.
@@TheRainHarvester it's not so much the metal being in contact, it's when you get an electrolytic solution (i.e. water that's anything less than perfectly pure) that's in contact with both of them.
when designing a product always ask yourself if the amount of material you're allocating is necessary or not. This is especially true if it's a cast part. You can take a $87 unit price down to $14 and end up with an easier to make part. I can't tell you how many young engineers don't even consider the material value in their customer's application.
My first tip, one I gave every CoOp student I’ve ever worked with, was learn to sketch. I’m not talking about becoming an artist, I’m talking about using sketches to capture, develop and convey ideas. “But I’m so bad at it!” They say. It gets better with practice, and a pencil and paper never need recharging or a software upgrade.
I bought an iPad and stylus somewhat recently to try using it for sketching. I'm not completely sold on it yet, but I think it could maybe replace pencil and paper for me. (But the battery did die on me during a meeting today.) It's especially nice in that I can share its screen during a video conference while I'm drawing on it. I 100% agree about the necessity of being able to sketch.
When having a design meeting, we started inviting the machinist. They've made a ton of prototype parts or fixtures. They've seen way more drawings from all groups of a company not just my team.
50-year chemical engineer here. First time viewing your videos - loved it. Remember, you make it foolproof, and the fools get smarter!
As a machinist, I wish I had a dollar for every time I have had to educate an engineer that inside square corners are very expensive.
Electrical components are often rectangular so I often require square holes in cabinets. Luckily it’s sheet metal so you can file the corners fairly easily if necessary. I usually put a note on the drawing with an allowable relief dia.
@@chrisreid8298 Wow. That was kind of dumb. Want a chance to start over?
@@DomManInT1 I haven’t had any machinists complain about undercutting the corners but if you have a better suggestion I’m happy to hear it. These are usually one off hoffman enclosures.
@@chrisreid8298 a lot of machinists are happy to take your money and make your complicated design. Most get paid by the hour. The relationship between engineers and machinists can get pretty tense. I’ve seen plenty of machinists make parts that were clearly wrong on the print, just so they could say "Well, that’s how you drew it."
@@rexmundi8154 Yup, when I was an intern at a metal working shop, I had to make about a 100 small sheet metal parts and noticed that the drawing had accounted for a bending radius in the wrong way, so the part would become to large. The experienced colleague agreed and told me to make them all to large. "They'll figure out it's wrong and probably ask you to make them again next week. It's not your fault, just make sure you did your job correctly."
One of the questions I frequently ask my management team, when we have critical time constraints and when the business wants it done yesterday, is "Do you want me to just get the job done quickly? Or, do you want me to do the job properly which will reduce repair time and maintenance costs in the future?"
I like the philosophy of the build it, break it, fix it model of thinking, but I try and take a little more time in the planning phases to increase the probability that the job will be completed successfully the first time. Each are different models of thinking/building/making and both have value.
We commonly say in the shop” You can have it right or you can have it right now”
One place I worked at, we used the following saying way too often: "We don't have time to do it right, but we do have time to do it twice." Same with "Days of development can save us hours of planning!"
Don't do it that way!
You can have it fast, you can have it cheap, or you can have good quality. Pick any two.
I'm just a 20 year old with absolutely no family or friends into ME but I've fallen absolutely in love with the process from start to finish, ill never be quite as great as you brilliant minds here but thank you for kindling the flame and sharing age old wisdom.
"It's hard, but that's your job." Been an engineer (electrical) my entire life (almost). That comment is the distillation of my entire career. We all learn that first week on the job. But somehow that concept gets lost. Thanks. Love your channel.
Probably because they realized how much it sucks after all the disappointments they experienced in their first week. Just because it's a fact doesn't mean it can't be changed. You should perhaps learn the difference between dissatisfaction and a lack of acceptance. Or perhaps you should recognize that your version of acceptance isn't universal. So long as you look down your nose at these people, they will look down their's at you.
If there's one things that nearly universally true of engineers is that they love to be doormats for powerful people.
The best engineers are the ones who take the time to learn how the things they design are made. I've always been told that if you're going to be coming engineer you need to learn some basic hand skills! It's important to know that your things should be designed to be repairable and have access ways. There's nothing more frustrating than being a mechanic who can't replace a part because he has to take the entire assembly apart.
As a former turboprop mechanic, and later automotive, I want to second and stress the above comment. Not only the disassembly, but servicing also. If there is a fluid to be serviced is there a clear and simple way to catch the liquid during evacuation.
Totally agree!!! I have worked with engineers whose idea of "engineering" was playing video golf on their computer at work and chasing women around the shop!! And when it came time to "engineer something" they couldn't do simple math (addition or subtraction) couldn't understand or read wire schematics and blueprints, and didn't know the difference between a Phillips Head Screw and a 12 Millimeter Socket!! Trying to assemble something that calls out a 100 Ohm resistor and yet all I have left in the box are two inch long slotted pan head screws gets old after the first two kits I have to assemble when my engineer can't understand "the wrong parts are not the same and don't belong"! And some of these engineers today have no humility, and are pretty arrogant, when you have to do their job for them, because they don't care or understand that a 2.5 MM fine thread nut isn't the same as a 1/4 watt diode OR that a three inch wire harness really doesn't need 82 zip ties to hold it together!!!
My Kia Rio has a washer motor that needs the inner wheel arch to be removed to access. diabolical.
In my country, drafters need to do a 6 month internship as a machinist during their apprenticeship.
I've done a great deal of work over the years (now mostly retired) in a number of fields. It was a pleasure, for example, to see electronic organs develop as time went on and the "serviceability" of these get easier and easier as time went on. The exact opposite is true when it comes to automotive engineering. I ran a retail battery store for a few years. There was one vehicle where you had to drop a headlight (!) in order to be able to access the bolts that held in a strut that went across the top of the battery, bolts that were readily accessible in many other vehicles that had such a strut. My current vehicle is even worse. You open the hood and you can't even SEE the battery. I recently had to have one replaced, and asked at the dealership what the mechanic had to do to get at it. He had to take the front wheel off, and then remove a panel behind that! This is absurd, designing things that way...
Great video! I learned some great things and realized that I take a very similar approach as well. 3 things I would add for advice:
1) Build modules (this is harder than it sounds since modules have interface points and those are what constrain the modules). Also less is needed to be redesigned if you find a problem with a module.
2) test what you don't know as soon as possible. Don't build a system on something you are not 80% positive that it will work. Test your assumptions early and often.
3) Iterate about 3 times. It is very rare to get something right the first time. Take what you learned and apply it to the next iteration. This is, as Elon put it, "Investing in the machine that builds machines". It gives the designer good practice at the problem.
Great channel! A couple pieces of advice for future and young engineers: Don’t underestimate the value of good peer review. Experienced millwrights, machinist, welders and fabricators are usually the smartest people in the room. Listen to them carefully.
This, thousand times over! I've lost track of the number of times a different perspective or fresh set of eyes has led to a far simpler or vastly improved design.
I’m a mechanical repair tech for assembly equipment , and just wanted to put out there that all those small design additions to make repairs easier to perform or ergonomic goes a long way for us. I greatly appreciate all the work engineers put into their design.
For young engineers wanting to understand if their design is well designed for assembly, nothing beats being the first person to try to put it together. You'll learn very quickly if you left yourself enough room to get a hand/tool into a certain spot or if a hole should be threaded because it's impossible to get a nut on the backside of something. I'd also highly recommend buying a copy of Machinery's Handbook, tons of useful info in there for when you design mechanical parts that are often standardized that you wouldn't have ever realized. Also huge props to exposing your kids to tools and hardware.
That is so true. I designed fume hoods and lab equipment and my first day on that job I hit the line and found there were bolt headed screws that wouldn't reach the holes 😅
Fighting this helped me learn to never wing things in my kwn design
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools." - Douglas Adams.
Dude! Excellent paraphrasing! Why had I never heard this quote before?? Good call. :D
"Every time that they make something foolproof, someone else invents a better fool" - unknown
The actual quote from the real test pilot murphy. "If something can be done wrong, it will be."
There is a related statement, make something foolproof, and only a fool will use it. I don't agree, there is the KIS principle. There is a software engineering principle based on someone using it who understands the application but not necessarily the details of the internals, it is those people I tend to design for.
I have an escape room... let me tell you stories...
As a University Student studying Civil engineering, the main thing I found and had problems with was focusing on the project all at once, break it down into smaller manageable tasks. Less stress and makes things much easier plus this can also highlight other things that might have been overlooked otherwise.
One of my favorite engineering quotes is also the one you used in the video, but I also love is "anyone can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands." Engineering is wonderful and if you're a student going through school right now, keep going. We've all been in your shoes, it's not easy, but it is SO worth it.
I disagree, I prefer a "safety factor" of at least 2x of designed strength etc... My coworker retired from an old steel mill and he said they were still using rollers that were designed for 1/4th the load they were using them for today.... He said they were made in the 1920's and everything was oversized and heavy duty and built to last. In comparison, the newer parts are engineered to be barely strong enough to do the job and frequently fail and need replacing because the are disposable designs. The saying they don't make them like they used to is so true.
@@scrappydogfinance8434 depends on what you're making. Elevators typically have a safety factor of 10, buildings and walkways have a safety factor of 4-5, but airplanes have a safety factor of below 2, however that is changing with the advent of composite materials such as carbon fiber. Some designs are disposable and intended obsolescence is definitely a thing, but it would be a waste of money and resources to make a bridge with a factor of safety of 10-20x
Ha! I made Swivel Laptop Stands for my service Trucks to do mobile invoicing using wireless data cards (back in the day before coke and ups were doing mobile invoicing) sold the idea to Microsoft, I made the stands out of 1/8' stainless, sealed wheel bearings and 3"OD Sch 40 iron pipe. Caught one of my techs one time with his girlfriend ( he was a tool) using the laptop stand as swiveling chair to support her and get her in the right position as they exercised together in the work van... Unexpected use for sure but no one got hurt...LBVS
Dual purpose I see
Now that's engineering
"exercised"
He's an extreme user.
You reminded me of Captain Joe with a smirk on his face about the Airbus A320 cockpit captain/first officer table: "And it can hold up to 30 kilos!" (or how much weight was it).
Totally not an innuendo
I occasionally walk through hardware stores just to see what they have that I can use. I have found things for a current project and for future ones. Some of it was made for a different purpose..
Good one!, I do this any time I don't have to be anywhere else. When asked what I'm looking for, I just reply, "I'm taking inventory for future projects". It doesn't take long for people at the various stores to get used to my wandering. haha
Anytime I walk around in HD or Lowes and someones asks me if they can help me I always very kindly say "no, because I'm not going to use any of this stuff for what you think it is for."
I was looking for spring steel for one project, but it was expensive to buy because I needed to buy large spools of it. I would also have to special order the size I wanted, making it even more expensive. Then I happened to remember that some plumbing snakes are made from spring steel, so, bingo, I found a small one that was cheap and used that.
Another time I needed some really tiny tools to move tiny electronics around and even do some scraping of hardened flux. I ended up getting a handful of used dental tools that worked perfectly.
And as useless as 4 wire phone cords are anymore, I've found they are plenty strong to hang up paintings and even large speakers.
Oh, yes, definitely look at things for all the different uses they can perform, not just what they are designed to do or what industry they are meant for. You might be surprised at how your brain looks at A + C + G + I + M and comes up with Magic.
I call it "shopping for inspiration".
The corollary to this is browsing the (paper?) versions of supply catalogs (like McMaster-Carr, MSC, Grainger, NSK, Boston Gear, etc...) and finding things "on the next page" that are related to what you thought you were looking for. Searching online catalogs and web searches too often just show you "this one thing you asked about" and NOTHING ELSE, when in fact, that next item in the catalog is what really would do the trick. They don't send out the paper catalogs unsolicited, and en mass like they they used to, but you can request one.
"I don't know yet but I'll figure it out" was the exact motto going into my current position
Dude you rock! Its inspiring to learn from waaay better engineers than I teaching better ways to do things. I wish I could still remember all that math from college, because you and "Stuff made here" both do amazing things with it!
"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."- Buckminster Fuller
Things should be elegant/intuitive/beautiful. Often purchase and use decisions are made by people who have the barest relation to the thing (known in audio circles as W.A.F.- wife acceptance factor, or otherwise management). There are thousands of unstated design parameters that go into what gets chosen and what gets left as a prototype.
The most valuable tip I can give to someone in engineering is to appreciate that there is seriously intelligent life outside of engineers. Management tends to value engineers while there are so many others in any organization that are essential to any success. Get to know the people on every side of what you do. With their support you will become a better engineer and a more complete person.
"Even stupid people can have bright ideas." - my quote when i had a good idea in work and told that to coworker... we had a good laught too
There's an old line I heard 20 years ago, something like "the engineer can tell you all the wonderful things the part does and what problems it's going to solve, but the maintenance guy can tell you whether he'd actually use it."
Jeremy, your Wisdom demonstrated of your Ability to Communicate with the Trades is Impressive. Ive worked As A Machinist for 27 years in Mining, Directional Drilling, Logging, Agriculture, and Civil Engineering. Too often the Engineers are not open to input to make the device more practical, in the Manufacturing, maintenance. I often just roll my Eyes, Sadly because they are not footing the Bill, and they are not open minded enough to see any other way than their idea. Please keep up the Good Work of Educating the Future thinkers.
Jeremy,
I've been in Machining trade 48yrs, love your connection about speaking to we machinists, very good advice to engineers, I have done tooling projects with engineers for many years, the best I can tell engineers, do not think that your Degree has more value or large headedness over years of experience of machining, we can readily work with & enjoy Engineers
Software engineer here that comes from a family of civil engineers. Amazing video! The one piece of advice that I would add is something that one of my old professors told me in undergrad when it comes to collaboration: "nothing happens in a vacuum". As engineers, we get raps for being cranky, ornery, and generally not very sociable. Seriously try and avoid that. Real industry work happens in teams, and often times half your job is going to be simply interacting with and negotiating with other teams how two components are going to interact with each other. A positive and friendly attitude will pay dividends.
If you ever think that you do not have enough time to do something and that you will do it later, it is unlikely that it will ever be done.
During the development process, you will never have more time than you have right now.
Always set aside time to do important things like design and requirements review, but keep that time constrained and efficient.
"i'll do my laundry when i have time."
Blessings Jeremy, from this old man (retired engineer & entrepreneur. Engineers, as you and I have done, shouldn’t limit themselves to any one field. My first degree was in Architecture, but, the market went soft, so I accepted a position as a mechanical engineer. I learned to TIG weld all types of metals, I learned to operate every machine in the shop, vertical milling machines, etc. I learned electrical engineering and programmable logic controllers. No limits.
A general rule of thumb: When tolerances and specs are not critical, try to give the assembler or area expert maximal freedom. No matter how much you know, someone who works in that area day in and day out probably has a better idea of solution ranges. By designing "play" into your solution, you also reduce the likelihood that future design modifications are going to require huge redesigns versus swapping out a single part or bolting on an additional feature. Of course all that has to be balanced against initial cost and any security/safety considerations.
When fabricating/prototyping yourself: wear your PPE, even if it's "just a quick cut".
YES! Replacement assemblies for "you" are hard to obtain.
Learnt that the hard way.
give it a fricken rest with the PPE...
@@AtimatikArmy No, dont, you want your eyes, ears and fingers to work for more that 5 years
@@milandjuric8043 NO.... I want to lose them all.... OBVIOUSLY!
Jeremy, Mech Eng 25 years experience. First advice I give all the young engineers - "the first thing you think of is wrong", second "how many ways can I think of to solve this?"
Gets them thinking of all the options!
Keep up the good work mate!
A corollary to this is: Most of what we know about anything is wrong. What we know that is right is only because of a narrow set of conditions or use cases. Many tragedies occur because people "know" something will work based on training, history or test results, until it doesn't. On the other hand, I've stubbled across a lot of solutions that can't work, but do because "known" things were actually based on assumptions that didn't apply.
@@videcomp I love that comment, perfectly balanced, as all things should be, yet it went somewhere and I found myself learning something.
Truly a great comment 👌
This is great info! My tip: Look into how nature solved a problem. How do ducks stay dry, how do animals navigate in the dark, how are birds strong enough to fly yet so light, how do plants distribute seeds etc...
Yep ! Biomimetism! Life has billion of years of trial and errors to design it's solutions
The fellow who designed 'one' of the fastest bicycles on the planet look to an orca.
🍻🇨🇦👨🏭
@@gordtemple764 Not familiar with this, but I sounds interesting. Designer's name?
@@ramixnudles7958 look up Varna handcycles 👍
@@gordtemple764 Will do! Thank you.
When dimensioning a drawing, use practical reference points. It's easy to dimension something in a way that is not really possible in real life.
Example - use an accessible flat surface as the datum instead of the center of the part.
YES!! I have been a manufacturing engineer for over 20 years and can tell you that any dimension that is difficult to measure will not be measured (and inevitably the part will eventually be made wrong). Think about how it is going to be measured, by whom, and with what before you dimension. For example, if someone is going to measure something with a tape measure, a tolerance of +/-0.005 is NOT going to be maintained.
Most common issue I’ve come across as a fabricator to do with unusable dimensions is when the dimensions on the drawing are projected in some way. Tape measures are point to point. Parallax won’t allow accuracy if you’ve gotta visually project from the tape to the project, especially over more than an inch. Maybe two.
Was building a trailer early in my apprenticeship that had a serious slope and a couple jogs in it’s overall structure. All dimensions on the side view drawing were dropped in as horizontal ordinates with the low rear bumper as the zero point. Now imagine my 1st year, green-as-hell attempts to make this work! I had a tape dangling through 20 feet of thin air and was trying to eyeball with a three foot square to “translate” 19’ 4 1/2” measurement up to the point it was meant to go on the frame. I’m giggling thinking about it! Musta been out by half a foot in the end XD trades people are stubborn. I ball parked that dimension as best I knew how cuz I sure as hell wasn’t getting another one! Ha ha!
Now as a drafter, I can understand how those kinds of model items make it into drawings, and the pain in the ass it can be to get non-projected dimensions in the drawings. Recently had a project that involved a new rectangular chute coming into a domed head of an existing tank. It was off centre in probably every way possible. When laying out the drawing for the hole that needed cut in the tank I had to bounce back and forth between measuring the length of manually projected sketch curves on the model and manually annotating them in the drawing so the installation team could accurately layout the cut with a bendy flat tape.
It’s well worth the time to give such usable dimensions though. Spending an hour in the office on something like that can easily save 10 hours for the guys in the field. As personal experience has taught me, trades people are used to working with incomplete info are perfectly comfortable ball-parking an awkward measurement, it’s more likely that a team will roll info they know is kinda shoddy than it is they’ll come back to you for clarification, so heads up!
It depends. There is often a tradeoff between ease-of-inspection and manufacturing, and functional requirements. Setting a centerline as a datum, between a pair of accessible, nominally-flat surfaces, can be useful. Partially depends on the capabilities of your shop. But I agree, in general. Use a real surface, or failing that, the best circular feature you have. If you can. As Mike hinted at below, if your inspector has a tape measure, there are certain things you just shouldn't do. But if you NEED to do certain things, and Inspection uses a CMM, and/or specialized, dedicated gauging, go ahead. Assuming you've done everything else possible to simplify the situation for the fabricators and inspection team. Also, just go talk to the inspector(s), if you find you need to design something crazy! They may have a good suggestion or two...
Thank you! Recently came across a drawing at my job where a piece was described as being measured from tangent to tangent. Of course these tangents were not part of the physical part, but rather the theoretical intersection of two planes in empty space. Hard to put a tape measure to.
And also do some diagonal dimensions to the outer edges to verify the angles within an assembly.
Or, if it's a bridge/arc type of assembly, do a perpendicular line dimension to the span (basically, put it upright on a table and measure the highest point straight down to the table surface).
Jeremy, you are one class act. I've showed your channel to my wife who is a middle school teacher, she's excited to share your videos with her students. I'm not a professional engineer but that doesn't stop me learning all I can to design and build the things that simply don't exist or that don't exist in the price range I could manage. If I have any tips for beginners, it would have to be these:
Firstly, take note of Jeremy's shop. His tools are organized, neat and not all hidden away in boxes. Tools that live in tool boxes in dark corners of your basement seldom get used.
Secondly, work spaces can be expensive. If you have a front loading washer and dryer in your basement and they're close enough together, build a workbench across both appliances with 2x8 or 2x10 lumber and a few gusset plates, the kind used in lightweight truss construction. I recommend some rubber type anti-skid pad under the home brew tabletop as well. Using this space can offer you easy access to electrical service (often the other plug the washer's plugged into is unused), and a nearby laundry tub. Plus the finished workbench will already be level and rock solid since the appliances had to be.
Third, never throw out a toothbrush. These are so handy for parts cleaning or adhesive application (such as Loctite's products), anything you can think of.
Fourth, for as Jeremy says, don't try to reinvent the wheel at every stage. Get your hands on old appliances, watch a couple of UA-cam videos on safety practices (capacitors inside non-powered electrical appliances, for example) and start hacking these things out. I love printers, especially, for all the motors and mechanisms, there's pulleys, rack and pinion subsystems, worm gear drives, all kind of things.
You might feel like everyone else is a wizard and you have no idea what you're doing. The truth is, no body knows what they're doing. You have some people who are incredibly specialized and know MORE than anyone else in the team on a given topic, but they are still not omniscient. They are still making best guesses based on knowledge and experience. The key to success is knowing who knows about what, so you can tap into those sources of knowledge and experience when you need to. Engineering is a lot about connecting people together and combining information from different sources. The boundaries between different peoples knowledge are where the mistakes most often happen as neither person takes the time and effort to appreciate how the disciplines interact.
This is so true. Some people just make it sound like they know what they're doing all the time. After a while you recognize that they're just good at bringing uncertain things as if they're facts.
The phenomenon is known as "impostor syndrome". Each of them feel the same way, like everybody else is an expert and THEY are an impostor. It happens because people see everybody else's "best of" album and their own "blooper reel".
YES! This was the #1 thing, IMO, that needed to be learned in an undergrad engineering education. Math & science aptitude are important, and so are general symbolic and language skills. But the ability to find and incorporate the information and knowledge needed for the job is an absolute must, which can and should be continually used, practiced, and where practical, upgraded.
When I managed engineers, and one had a problem, I would send them to another engineer that had solved it. In time the teams expertise was limited by the team, not an engineer.
Engineering is the Art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze, so as to withstand forces we cannot really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.
As an engineering student this video is extremely helpful! Thank you Jeremy! I’d love to see more content like this!