|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/02/93 12:01
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:45:06
GMT Kevin Scholl scribed:
>> Uh, let's try a car. A designer designs a car. It's to be a sports
>> car and should be small and light but powerful. He determines the
>> shape and can guage the size and appx weight. He decides the engine
>> should be about 280 hp or more to overcome the necessary weight, wind
>> resistance, etc., of the impending vehicle. However, there is a
>> limited anount of room under the hood and no currently-produced
>> engine fits the bill. Ergo, an engine must be _engineered_ to meet
>> the requirements _if possible_ or the designer must be informed that
>> a change in engine-compartment size is really necessary.
>
> Perhaps not the best analogy for your argument.
>
> Interestingly, I would say that the development of this new engine
> requires design as well as engineering. Not from an aesthetic
> viewpoint, no. But characteristics such as size and orientation
> (depending upon the space into which it need be placed), as well as
> not-so-subtle elements such as how its exhaust system integrates into
> the vehicle, are DESIGN issues. Again, the engineering is in the
> actual building and implementation of the engine. Both are inherently
> necessary to solve the problem.
Okay, and furthermore I think the word "design" often includes factors
which are properly engineering, too. Edison "engineered" the first
successful light bulb, he didn't "design" it, but the sentence "Edison
designed the first light bulb," isn't particularly wrong as commonly
manifested, either.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|