Re: CAD History and Engineers

From: <Christopher>
Date: Sun Sep 30 2007 - 23:26:00 EDT

On Sep 30, 2007, at 6:37 AM, bruce.r.raymond@fluor.com wrote:

> When Industry "movers & shakers" get around to realizing the benefits
> of
> the "old school" approach a lot of present day misconceptions will be
> clarified - but like it or not CAD is here to stay
No quibble there, but I still question how it's utilized. The idea seems to be to reduce head count and use inexperienced people to make the pictures.

I guess I'm not as sanguine about the advantages of visualization, if only because experienced designers already have enough grasp of spatial relationships to visualize what's needed. In fact I have the feeling that the major reason for 3D modeling is to make up for the absence of a grasp of 3D space. The ability to visualize a component in 3D isn't design--it may just be a crutch. Design is communicating the requirements like tolerances, materials and connections that only make sense symbolically. You use conventional thread representation or weld symbols because there's no point in doing it any other way. With weld symbols in particular, the conventional method is the most compact way to convey what's needed.

Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at <a href="/group/PipingDesign/post?postID=kzKFCDISToegpc6B21Mohcje_5fvGfohQdbjlhXDo5YZYMiCOFAJyQmbMDpSSrh-cn8JZm3GdK88WQ">chrisw@skypoint.com</a> | this distance" (last words of Gen.

____________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)

<a href="http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw">http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw</a> Received on Sun Sep 30 23:26:00 2007