About five years ago i was going round and round with a bunch of "Extra" class amateur radio operators and EE's via the net about a specific subject. They kept quoting me all of this "text", blah, blah, blah, etc... that i was "wrong" or "mistaken" about what i was experiencing and describing. It took me almost two years of arguing before i was actually able to get one of them to do testing and measurements to verify or deny my claims. They were so content with their "books", "theories" and "teachings" that they thought i HAD to be wrong and wouldn't bother seeing for themselves.
The "hands on" testing only happened after i shipped the necessary equipment to one of the debaters. Even though he disagreed with me 100%, he said that he would run through the tests and report his honest findings. I had always found him to be straightforward and very methodical, so i was glad that he was the one to step up to the plate.
As it turns out, he verified everything that i claimed. He did this even though he didn't understand why the results were coming out the way that they did. I knew why it was happening and had tried to explain it to them for two years, but they had refused to listen or learn. The funny thing about this one is that i had learned what i knew from the very same books that they were trying to use against me.
On another note, a very large manufacturer based out of the Orient had sent me several different prototypes all based on the same design. This company does "badge engineering" and builds many, many models for other companies. They simply "tag" them with the various brands and features as desired. This happens ALL the time in the electronics field.
After looking the prototypes over and putting them through their paces, i found some circuitry that i was unhappy with for specific reasons and asked them to change it. I went through all the technical reasons why and how it needed to be changed in our communications via email. The corporate response to me was that what i was seeing take place was IMPOSSIBLE to happen. As such, nothing i could say or do would prove to them that the design was not up to snuff.
To make a long story short, the President of the company, their head electrical engineer ( EE ) and their head mechanical engineer ( ME ) flew in from Malaysia to visit me. Along the way, they picked up their corporate attorney in California. Since he was the one that had originally contacted me about doing R & D for them, they wanted him there "just in case".
As it turns out, once they could see that the "impossible" WAS happening and experiencing first hand what i was trying to tell them, they halted production on the model wearing their corporate name. We went about redesigning the offending circuitry and then put the "new and improved" design into production.
Another company that they build for said that they liked the original design and ignored my findings. They wanted their version of the product built as originally planned, so their units where not held up by the necessary redesign.
Since the secondary company was able to get their models out the door quicker due to staying with the original design, their version of the product hit the market first. Within two to three weeks of introduction, comments were showing up on the net as to the specific problems that i had mentioned. The EE from the secondary company called me up and wanted to know what he should do. I told him to follow my original directions or "go scratch". I wasn't helping them if they weren't willing to listen. Needless to say, they ended up changing their version over to match the corrections that i had pointed out in the first place.
All of the EE's wanted to know how i was able to find the problems that i did. They had done ALL kinds of testing, measurements, put the the design into computer simulation several times as the product evolved, etc... I simply told them "i used the product like an avid enthusiast would and went from there". My detailed notes from actual use led me to check into specific functions and operation of the unit, which obviously were under-designed.
This is a step that many manufacturers overlook. If the product looks & feels good, has good measurements on the bench, it should perform as intended in the field. Right ??? I think you know better.
There are DOZENS of situations and experiences like this one that have taught me many great lessons about just how good most "EE's" and "manufacturer's" really are. Don't take for granted that just because someone can design a product that "works" that it is as good as possible or that it is "correct" to start with. Most EE's are limited by their own willingness to learn or experiment and the budgets that they have to work with. They follow "textbook" examples and are therefore limiting their own personal growth and knowledge along with technology that could make our lives ( and systems ) better things. It is the "rare bird" that is willing to challenge what is commonly thought to be "fact". It is to these people that we owe many of our great inventions and breakthroughs to. Don't underestimate the "tinkerer" or "tweaker". Sean
>
The "hands on" testing only happened after i shipped the necessary equipment to one of the debaters. Even though he disagreed with me 100%, he said that he would run through the tests and report his honest findings. I had always found him to be straightforward and very methodical, so i was glad that he was the one to step up to the plate.
As it turns out, he verified everything that i claimed. He did this even though he didn't understand why the results were coming out the way that they did. I knew why it was happening and had tried to explain it to them for two years, but they had refused to listen or learn. The funny thing about this one is that i had learned what i knew from the very same books that they were trying to use against me.
On another note, a very large manufacturer based out of the Orient had sent me several different prototypes all based on the same design. This company does "badge engineering" and builds many, many models for other companies. They simply "tag" them with the various brands and features as desired. This happens ALL the time in the electronics field.
After looking the prototypes over and putting them through their paces, i found some circuitry that i was unhappy with for specific reasons and asked them to change it. I went through all the technical reasons why and how it needed to be changed in our communications via email. The corporate response to me was that what i was seeing take place was IMPOSSIBLE to happen. As such, nothing i could say or do would prove to them that the design was not up to snuff.
To make a long story short, the President of the company, their head electrical engineer ( EE ) and their head mechanical engineer ( ME ) flew in from Malaysia to visit me. Along the way, they picked up their corporate attorney in California. Since he was the one that had originally contacted me about doing R & D for them, they wanted him there "just in case".
As it turns out, once they could see that the "impossible" WAS happening and experiencing first hand what i was trying to tell them, they halted production on the model wearing their corporate name. We went about redesigning the offending circuitry and then put the "new and improved" design into production.
Another company that they build for said that they liked the original design and ignored my findings. They wanted their version of the product built as originally planned, so their units where not held up by the necessary redesign.
Since the secondary company was able to get their models out the door quicker due to staying with the original design, their version of the product hit the market first. Within two to three weeks of introduction, comments were showing up on the net as to the specific problems that i had mentioned. The EE from the secondary company called me up and wanted to know what he should do. I told him to follow my original directions or "go scratch". I wasn't helping them if they weren't willing to listen. Needless to say, they ended up changing their version over to match the corrections that i had pointed out in the first place.
All of the EE's wanted to know how i was able to find the problems that i did. They had done ALL kinds of testing, measurements, put the the design into computer simulation several times as the product evolved, etc... I simply told them "i used the product like an avid enthusiast would and went from there". My detailed notes from actual use led me to check into specific functions and operation of the unit, which obviously were under-designed.
This is a step that many manufacturers overlook. If the product looks & feels good, has good measurements on the bench, it should perform as intended in the field. Right ??? I think you know better.
There are DOZENS of situations and experiences like this one that have taught me many great lessons about just how good most "EE's" and "manufacturer's" really are. Don't take for granted that just because someone can design a product that "works" that it is as good as possible or that it is "correct" to start with. Most EE's are limited by their own willingness to learn or experiment and the budgets that they have to work with. They follow "textbook" examples and are therefore limiting their own personal growth and knowledge along with technology that could make our lives ( and systems ) better things. It is the "rare bird" that is willing to challenge what is commonly thought to be "fact". It is to these people that we owe many of our great inventions and breakthroughs to. Don't underestimate the "tinkerer" or "tweaker". Sean
>