Engineering Life-Machine Design

Steve Williamson once said that there are analysts and then there are synthesysts. The analysts are the ones who model and simulate physical systems and the synthesysts are the ones who take all the various engineering knowledge needed and design things.

Machine design is an applied engineering skill, it is a synthesis of many skills. Machine designers are different than machine theorists. There are people who comfortably occupy both spaces; but by and large, the analysts reside in academia while the synthesysts, the designers, reside in industry. There are a number of good reasons for that.

The people who are analysts think and teach in terms of equations, physics, and mathematics. The people who are synthesists think in those terms as well, except they think about them in different ways. The best practice for the university setting does not align itself with the best practice necessary for design, the pedagogy that we adopt for the universities is that the knowledge is presented in a very logical linear progression, based upon what we know about the subject. We start at the basics and we slowly move into the more complex subjects as the student develops more ability and knowledge. 

The problem with machine design specifically is that not only is it multidisciplinary, but the design problem involves many coupled systems happening at the same time. Mechanical system design, thermal design, drive design, manufacturing system constraints, cost constraints, performance constraints, and the interaction between them all affect each part of the design, so there is a never-ending iteration loops amongst all of them. This is not to say that motor design  is unique in that aspect; this is why many complex applied engineering problem solving skills are not taught in the universities: the linear pedagogy does not lend itself to the kind of procedures that we need to apply in engineering. Machine design is the fellow who is keeping all the plates spinning at the same time, you need to have and eye on everything. Of course, that is assuming that the designer has the overall picture of what they're trying to do. Therefore, it is called the synthesis part of engineering: you are synthesizing all the divergent and diverse knowledge.

To answer the question of why the universities don’t have people teaching machine design, the best teachers are in industry, practicing their art. In order to effectively teach machine design, the teachers, are themselves well versed with the problem and are well versed in the holistic vision of the design problem. The normal academic pedagogy is not well aligned with the synthesis of the many knowledges inherent in the design problem. The usual academic pedagogy is much more aligned with the analysis portion of the puzzle, that is the crux of why we cannot just throw anyone to the wolves and have them have them teach a holistic mind frame of design with sequential reasoning and procedures. There was a time when people used the linear pedagogy to teach machine design, go to some older references in machines from the 1940’s and 1950’s and you will find design sheets, where the designer has to fill in the sheets sequentially. This is to keep the designers from forgetting all the variables they need to calculate for their design. The design equations are mostly algebraic and assumes linearity. The procedure deals with the nonlinearity by assuming linear performance, in addition, these are in the days before variable frequencies, so the designs are assumed to be operating at one operating point. Fortunately, computational power has increased exponentially, and we are able to calculate the design variables through numerical simulation, which gives us the ability to make design decisions quicker and with greater precision. In so doing, however, it allows us to incorporate more of the constraints from the other coupled systems into consideration at a much earlier point in the design process than we have been able to before the computational power, which means that the up front design is much more completely able to meet the designs and constraints.

Teaching machine design is not just teaching the science of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and other academic subjects. It is also the passing on of experiential knowledge, there aren’t that many people around who can do justice to the task.

Observations-On Churches Supporting a Rescinding of the Quarantine by Easter

The response to the posting on my page that mentioned the Evangelical Churches that fell in line with the president on pushing the timeline for the sheltering in place and quarantines around the country so that Easter services  can be held was interesting. Most talked about their own churches and how their churches did not meet on Sundays, they dutifully sheltered in place and attended services online. One person talked about the importance of the social aspect of their church community, another boasted about how awesome their online services were. They spoke with pride about how their churches were able to overcome the challenge and made them able to meet online.

The thing that stood out to me is that there is a defensiveness in their responses. They seem to disavow the practices of the churches mentioned in the posting. The argument was along the line of:  that's not us, we're not that kind of people, we good people who would not do that. That's all fine and good except that, and I am not going to argue whether you are a good Christian or a bad Christian. The tone is distinctly different from the way people talked about Muslims after 9/11.  when most of America blamed Muslims, all Muslims. There was no differentiation at that time, there are no good Muslims, it was said, time and again. There were no differentiations between them, there are no shades of grey. Most sane people did not buy into the hysteria, in fact President George W. Bush very clearly differentiated between the extremist fundamentalist and the rest of Islam. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, many of the people are taking the easy way out by talking about the nuances and shades of grey between Christians. Believe it or not, when there is no separation in people’s minds. People will think in terms of monolithic block called Christians.  That is the Christians baggage, that's your burden to take with you, the good comes with the bad period. Just like Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have to live with the burden of shouldering the malfeasance of their black sheep. Realistically, I understand the differences between the fundamentalist Evangelicals sects versus other sects of  Christians. Yes it is insane, but that is the way it is. Deal with it.

The other thing I noticed is that people are personalizing the church’s behavior, or more accurately, their personal church’s behavior. Narrowing down the discussion down to their own churches, as a small segment of the overall religion. “We don't do that, we are different, we are better”. As we are talking about this particular situation, your first reaction is defending your little personal church? I find it interesting that no one thought about what this action was going to do to congregations. Most of congregation are older member, the chances of the virus spreading amongst that group of people is great and because there's so many older people, those folks may not survive any potential outbreak in those gatherings. There wasn’t even a “thoughts and prayers” on the comments. Christian charity and empathy were not mentioned.

I look upon one’s moral philosophy, or morality as something that is up to the individual. Moral philosophy is something personal and intangible which is created through my life, through my parents moral teachings, through my own experiences in life, through my own readings, through my exposures to others, and even through whatever religion I was exposed to. I personally put those beliefs through a cycle of questioning, critical thinking, and rigorous testing every time there is a situation that's will test my beliefs. I weigh the facts compared to my experience and I make my decision. If I decide that my personal moral philosophy is wrong after I've gone through my process, then I will adjust my personal moral philosophy. I am not saying that everyone should do as I do. That would make me a hypocrite.

As I look at those people who are in those congregations, I wonder what they think about the church leadership's intent on insisting that they gather on Easter because that decision may very well kill someone. I wonder personal philosophy lines up with what their leaders are telling them. If they are not aligned, I hope that they are courageous enough to walk away because freedom of religion means you can walk away from what they had chosen as their congregation. Many people have in recent days. The real problem is if they are aligned with their leaders, then I wonder about these people’s grasp on reality, on whether they understand that they could very well be killing their friends, neighbors, and family. This is how the Branch Davidian this is how the Jonestown massacre happened: people who have align the personal philosophy to that of their leaders unthinkingly and without question, because they followed that cult of personality.