Quote:
Originally Posted by RADustin
man you're something else. It's ok to be wrong. It really is. 'technically correct' vs correct. That's a new one.
|
its a quote from futurama haha
Quote:
Originally Posted by RADustin
the best part is you then argue that your 'technically correct' value, shot from the hip while 'laying over the top' is more correct than an engineered drawing.
|
when I was a newbie I worked a project for ECS on a bizjet cabin stretch. we had lots of engineers working on it, and lots of guys leading it each with 10-20 years in the business doing thermo, crunching numbers, modeling it in V5, measuring emissivity of cabin parts to determine how long it would take to get to max temp, and how long it would take the vapor system to cool it down. they spent a couple months on the equation, it was massive. we went to a hot airfield, measured the humidity and temperatures through the whole test. the equation wasnt even close. the reason why it wasnt close is because doing everything in a theoretical environment couldnt capture what was actually happen in the real world. the guys with all the experience shrugged and said "this is why we test".
I remembered that all through my career, to look beyond what the print shows. at my last job I was responsible for setting up an airflow lab using CFD modeling, the machines, the employees, everything. and the very first project we did was determine the offset, the difference between the modeling result and what could be expected in a real world test. because marketing would run with the CFD results if we let them.
the print can be extremely detailed and your model can have lots of hours in it, but at some point you have to lay on the engine and take some measurements, go to the body and take some measurements. this is what a test looks like, what has been missed will be apparent. you keep saying that the measurement is what you show on the print, but as a guy who crawled around on a cummins measuring where things fit and what needed done to put it in a new chassis, I can tell you that the trans adapter would be almost as tall as the original 235 valve cover when mounted high enough in the chassis to not interfere with the suspension. your solidworks models are lined up on the crank it looks like, if you raised the cummins I bet that would be the result. no matter if that adapter is 1.5 inches thick or 5 inches thick, it will be there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RADustin
thats epic. I will have to share this with co-workers and friends. They will get a kick out of it.
|
I bet more than a few of them have seen futurama. I have been (and still am) pretty successful in my engineering career, so your opinion (or your friends and coworkers) doesnt really mean anything to me. I have tried to pay you proper respect for being an engineer, I havent tried to be insulting. be sure when you show them my comments you show them yours, when you are belligerent and unyielding and insulting. I have known a few engineers like this, its not uncommon, but that is your problem, and theirs, in the real world. this is just a screen I have to read, like a print.