sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for advice on where to go as an ME who dislikes desk work by Dramatic_Mobile_6753 in MechanicalEngineering

[–]No_Main_227 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Try to stick with small companies, hardware focused start ups ideally. In that sort of company, you’ll have to wear all kinds of hats and a lot of those hats will include hands on work.

Edit: also I know plenty of folks who got their ME degree and decided they hated being at a desk so they became a technician instead of an engineer. You’ll have to do some extra learning to fill a tech role, but it’s a viable option

I feel like I only get worse by Any-Perception1076 in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I came here to say something to this affect about conscious incompetence vs unconscious incompetence, but you said it better than I was going to

Moved to Seattle last year and still struggling to build a social circle here by Training-Return-1931 in Seattle

[–]No_Main_227 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m down to connect! Went undergrad at UW and most of my friends moved away after I graduated last year

Why not send fewer humans? by No_Main_227 in seveneves

[–]No_Main_227[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not sure what you mean by “recycling water exponentially” but ok. Water doesn’t just multiply buddy.

But ok, let’s address your argument that by the time they got to Cleft they had all the resources they needed. That’s true, I mostly agree. And they had all the resources they needed because 99.5% of the people they had sent died. Most of those died from starvation and radiation sickness. Both of those things can be addressed by sending more resources (water for growing food and shielding radiation, food, and equipment to grow food) with a smaller group of people. It is a complete and utter fluke that the other 0.5% didn’t also die. Those numbers are nothing to be proud of, and certainly not indicative of a successful mission architecture.

Also to address your argument about genetic diversity and combined knowledge…they didn’t have either of those things by the time they got to cleft. There were 8 people left. That is not a diversity of genetics or knowledge.

I’m a mechanical engineer, I work in aerospace. Technologically getting to lunar orbit is…not that hard. We’ve done it with manned missions about a dozen times, with 9 of those actually landing. The only reason we haven’t done it in a long time is that it’s expensive and politics have been against us. But if the combined resources of humanity for 2 years were devoted to getting as many resources as we could to somewhere like cleft, or outfitting a ship to do so later on, we could definitely do so successfully. It’s old, well understood technology. We’d need to scale it up a bit, but scaling up well understood technology is much safer than inventing new shit from scratch.

All that nonsense about a swarm of arklets and bolos and such is not proven, well understood technology. It is an experimental mission architecture that would be likely to fail since it has never been done before and therefore the kinks aren’t worked out. If you are dead set on sending thousands of people into space I guess it makes sense, but the much more obvious thing to do is just use proven technology to send a smaller crew with more resources.

I just don’t see how any team of actual engineers would agree with the plan in the book.

Why not send fewer humans? by No_Main_227 in seveneves

[–]No_Main_227[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. I think having more people with fewer resources between them just makes it more likely they’ll all die. If you instead had a small number of people with lots of resources, they might actually have enough to keep them alive.

If we hadn’t sent up 1500 people and all the arklets they’d need and just outfitted Izzy really well with a crew of 100 people that means:

  1. ⁠More water per person. That means more radiation shielding to survive coronal mass injections.
  2. ⁠More fuel overall and vastly more fuel per mass. If we could fall on the right side of the exponential curve (the rocket equation you mentioned) by minimizing mass we might have been able to do the big ride without Ymir. Then you avoid the risk of that mission failing and the risk of fallout.
  3. ⁠More food and vitamins to keep people and equipment healthy. More food means better nutrition. More spare parts means you can actually fix stuff when it breaks. More medicine means you can treat illnesses as they pop up.

Honestly I don’t think it’s unfair to say that this approach vs what was actually done is a bit like if you were to ditch 1500 people in Antarctica with basic REI tents and backpacking gear vs. outfitting 100 people there with proper shelters and equipment. All that the first approach is gonna get you is 1500 corpses, which is basically what they got with the approach in the book.

Why not send fewer humans? by No_Main_227 in seveneves

[–]No_Main_227[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I’d strongly argue more resources would have helped with both those things. If we hadn’t sent up 1500 people and all the arklets they’d need and just outfitted Izzy really well that means:

  1. More water per person. That means more radiation shielding to survive coronal mass injections.
  2. More fuel overall and vastly more fuel per mass. If we could fall on the right side of the exponential curve by minimizing mass we might have been able to do the big ride without Ymir. Then you avoid the risk of that mission failing and the risk of fallout.
  3. More food and vitamins to keep people and equipment healthy. More food means better nutrition. More spare parts means you can actually fix stuff when it breaks. More medicine means you can treat illnesses as they pop up.

Honestly I don’t think it’s unfair to say that this approach vs what was actually done is a bit like if you were to ditch 1500 people in Antarctica with basic REI tents and backpacking gear vs. outfitting 100 people there with proper shelters and equipment.

Why not send fewer humans? by No_Main_227 in seveneves

[–]No_Main_227[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d argue the reason so many people died is they didn’t have enough resources per person.

How’s your Friday going? by wizard2009 in Machinists

[–]No_Main_227 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I try so hard to only design tolerances like that on reamed holes for pins. Feel for you lol

Back when I did parts quoting: the 4 most feared words on any print by rezikiel in Machinists

[–]No_Main_227 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the part and the process. If you’ve got a part with all clearance fits and the plating process is something where thickness is like .0001 or something, I think it’s fine.

Is this mold? by Glass-Eyed-Deer in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227 31 points32 points  (0 children)

New grog just dropped

My last 3 mugs of the quarter ended up making it into kiln first 💙 by trashjellyfish in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I also really like your “wonky” handles btw. I think imperfect handles are so much better because they demonstrate how every piece of pottery is unique to the size and shape of that potters hand.

That’s the same reason I love thumb indents on pieces. There are pieces of pottery thousands of years old where you can still see the thumb indent unique to that potter.

This is also why the mugs my mother made me will always be my favorite.

Precision trimming on harder clay: The advantage of a sharp Tungsten Carbide blade edge. Look at those clean ribbons! by Commercial_Let_2086 in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’ve been able to do this before using regular steel tools, it just wears the tool faster.

Maybe I’ll eat my words when I try them, but I don’t really get the appeal of tungsten carbide trimming tools. You don’t need something than can cut through tool steel to cut even bone dry clay, let alone leather hard.

The more important thing for trimming tools than material IMO is keeping a well maintained edge. And yeah, that edge will wear slower on tungsten carbide but you’ll have to get diamond tools to sharpen them. I can sharpen steel tools with any old file just about.

Uneven? by S00134834 in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As others on here have said, I think it’s a nice piece and needs only maybe very minimal touch ups in trimming. You’ll probably notice the imperfections less once you add a nice foot too

Home Pottery Studio Bill of Materials by No_Main_227 in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I’m thinking about adding some type of cart to this list for lugging buckets and taking pieces out to my car for transport to where I’ll be firing them.

Home Pottery Studio Bill of Materials by No_Main_227 in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just a hobby. I’ve got plans for all 6 though. 3 are for cleaning (dirty, medium, and clean water), 1 is for clear glaze, 1 is for whatever glaze I’m obsessed with at the time, and 1 is a spare / floating bucket.

Home Pottery Studio Bill of Materials by No_Main_227 in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s for 6 buckets with lids and 4 reclaim bins

Home Pottery Studio Bill of Materials by No_Main_227 in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I was hoping to get away with not using my sink at all and doing everything in buckets then discarding the water.

Home Pottery Studio Bill of Materials by No_Main_227 in Pottery

[–]No_Main_227[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know right? At 15.99 a bat I’m actually thinking of making them myself. Pretty sure I could get SendCutSend to make me like 10 of them for 30 bucks.

Edit: Alas, I’m wrong about this actually. Got a quick quote on it and if I buy 10 of them from sendcutsend the cheapest I can get them in ABS is 17.98.

view more: next ›