Bill, W6WRT wrote:
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:34:03 -0500, "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The latest series of some amps have more C as a result of capacitor
>> technology, not engineering brilliance.
>>
>
> REPLY:
>
> Nonsense. If less capacitance was acceptable, it would be used simply
> for cost savings. Good engineers use the minimum amount required to
> get the job done.
>
>
I hope I phrased this correctly:
That would be one of the definitions which is profit driven but first
the job/goal has to be defined.
Nearly all endeavors are a group of compromises based on the resources
available and the desired outcome.
The goal may not be the most for the least. With most hams, individuals,
and projects, the amount of resources available be they money, material,
time, or any combination of the three are likely to be the defining forces.
So to start, you define the goal, a method of reaching that goal, and a
method for defining when the goal has been reached usually called
validation within engineering. Depending on the job, validation is often
a simple set of criteria, but it can be quite complex.
If the goal is to do the best possible job it may not entail using the
minimum to get the job done. An example in amps is the wide range of
amps available with a wide range in prices and capabilities from some
manufacturers starting with the absolute minimum based on cost while
others have top-of-the-line, no compromise (for a price) amps.
The one approach takes the original concept to heart and hams are great
at stretching a dollar until it screams in pain, while the other makes
the result/goal the driving force. OTOH it's not uncommon to see the
latter turn into the former. It's much less common (rare) to see the
former turn into the latter as there are just more people constrained by
cost, or will to settle for less than optimum. Many of us are forced to
do that every day.
Having been a project manager I was the guy who wrote what is called the
project charter. For those not involved in that world, the project
charter tells you what was wanted (the goal in realistic terms), how to
get there, or more often the engineers to get us there, and the
definition of when we had reached the goal. Then I got to divide the
project between engineers. Then it was ride heard on a group or groups
of engineers to get the job done or the goal reached which most often
was just monthly meetings for each to state where they were and get
everyone to work together. In a formal system, the major parties are
brought together (cornered) to define the goal and sign off on those, or
that goal. ANY and I have to emphasize the ANY change to the project be
they additions or features dropped result in starting the whole process
over again. Otherwise the project can turn into a never ending money pit
that never is actually finished. It's surprising how many companies
don't resort to this formal process, but large multinational
corporations with thousands of employees and many products are literally
bound to it.
So, I was in a position to see engineering oriented to get the most for
the least, and sometimes the the best possible while staying within a
given budget. I never had one that had unlimited resources. Riding herd
on a group of engineers who each has his or her own ideas of how to do
things and whose mantra is the word "focus" can be ...
well...interesting. I found that there is a very fine line between
focus and tunnel vision.
73
Roger (K8RI)
> 73, Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|