As a prof of systems engineering, I feel I should address some fallacies and typical causes of problems down the road:
Averagesupernova said:
Everyone please concentrate on this instead of questioning what I'm doing, what this is for, suggesting better ways to do it, etc. This sort of thing just adds confusion to the thread.
Knowledge is a tricky thing. Passing on knowledge is even trickier if your media for doing so is limited. The fact that we are asking questions (to try to visualize) means
WE are the ones who are
already confused. Your saying this adds confusion to the thread is not borne-out by the fact that you "forgot about the spring" initially, and who knows if that may have not come out but for our questioning. "Forgetting" about key requirements or elements is quite common. It is why systems engineering (up-front) is so crucial to success. That is why we call it "requirements DISCOVERY".
I believe the descriptions I've written thus far in the thread should be enough to get my point across. If not, I'm very sorry.
One of the greatest tests for a systems engineer who derives & writes technical requirements is this: Take it to THREE other engineers, each of differing speciality disciplines. Ask them to give their interpretation of what is wanted. If all three give reasonably similar interpretations, you have at least an adequate requirement.
I do not plan on writing any kind of specs until I get a sample part in my hand.
MAJOR caution. This kind of thinking results in airplanes crashing, shuttles exploding, and much less severe (although not necessarily less costly) hazards. We live in a business environement where everyone wishes to make somethign with "off the shelf" components... before they have ever even studied their needs, modeled them, or analyzed them in detail. Sometimes, there is no "shelf". How do you think some of us write specs when there IS no part we can hold in our hands?
I have some flexibility in the devices size and orientation. Writing specs for something that is not available off the shelf that I have no intention of manufacturing myself or having someone else manufacture is a complete waste of my time.
I don't often speak this frankly, but you are completely wrong. I deal with this attitude with students and with professional engineers who should know better. Ignorance of requirements and how they are developed is THE SINGLE MOST-CITED "lesson learned" on any failed program. There is at least one spec (I know there are more) which is certainly not a waste of your time... and I have asked you about it and you have not answered. Loading. In fact, this is the MOST IMPORTANT question with regard to size of the device you are looking for, its holding force, and if it is E/M actuated, the power required to hold said load.
I fully realize that the engineering world works in drawings and specs but my situation is comparable to me asking General Motors if they have anything in flying cars and they ask me to write up a spec for it.
I'm not buying that analogy. I think you are making an excuse to be lazy. (Just my opinion). I see it all the time in students.
Like I said, I am willing to help. But if you are going to not answer questions and insist that your way is adequate enough (even though more people than me seem to be confused) then you have not learned enough about engineering to succeed. Sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em.
Rainman
I have checked nowhere else at this point. It's something that popped into my head in the last hour or so as a solution. It NEEDS to be electrical. It will make enough on/off cycles for manual to be impractical.
