Complaint Requirements for Posting Engineering Inventions Online

[Cyrus]

There seems to be a never ending slew of them with their 'inventions' - i.e. poorly labeled drawings with nothing more than a "I guess it will work" to back it up. To be honest, I am getting sick-and-tired of these never ending bad ideas littered all over the engineering forums. Just like the independent research, I ask there be strict guidelines for these nonsense threads.

If you have an invention:

-a: have very detailed drawings with clear labels and 3-view
-b: have some background as to why you invented it, and what current ideas are to solve the problem

-c: what kind of a patent search did you do?
-d: what engineering analysis have you done so far?

This is very basic stuff any undergraduate engineer should know. These threads are appallingly bad.

Don't post your half brained inventions here and call it engineering - its a joke.

Edit: Also, stop asking for magic software that will design a space shuttle for you. No such software exists.

 

[Pengwuino]

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Cyrus.

In the Physics portion of the website, there is a quality standard that is met and there is no real debate anymore as to whether or not to allow postings that are trying to put forward a new idea or concept. It has it's own forums (or does it even have that anymore? IR forums) and speculative posts are quickly deleted. It seems like Cyrus is just asking for a similar quality standard for the engineering section.

I don't take part in the engineering forum but it seems like the beef is with a quality of postings that are already banned in the physics portion. If it's anything more then that, I'm not in a position to recognize it.

That's my $.25 (inflation)

 

[Cyrus]

It's really quite simple. If you post a HW question, there is a minimum level of effort you must show.

The same should be true for these 'inventors'.

 

[Evo]

Please, let's stay with the OP about the quality of posts in the engineering forum.

 

[Cyrus]

Raymers website really sums up what I'm saying quite well.

http://www.aircraftdesign.com/Advice2Inventors.html

Note: STEP ONE. The majority of people posting their stuff here are not even past the very first step.

 

[waht]

I haven't seen much of this in the EE section. Once in a while someone will post something extraordinary, but that doesn't in anyway reduce credibility of the genuinely good threads. At worst the thread won't get answered, at best other posters will explain to the OP the errors with the argument. Threads that require too much deciphering also go unanswered.

If this is that of a big deal, I certainly vote for catapulting Cyrus to a mentor status and start cleaning this up, as long he takes care of the EE section.

 

[russ_watters]

The simple fact is that this forum is open to all and not just degreed engineers, so it isn't surprising we get such undeveloped ideas. It isn't reasonable to put up guidelines that essentially require people be degreed engineers before they can even post.

 

[Cyrus]

I see far too many 'inventors' thinking this is the 'come here to have free engineering analysis done for you forums'.

Most people fail to do even the most basic, zeroth order analysis on their ideas. I have to argue, if they cannot do even basic analysis, they are not doing engineering: they are flying by the seat of their pants and should be posting in an inventors sub-forum. This is, after all, an engineering sub-forum they are posting to.

The scary thing is the number of engineering students that post looking for software to do things for them but don't have an iota of what goes on behind the different packages in terms of methodologies or numerical precision. Even graduate students asking for help instead of looking through books or Journal papers! (Don't you people have an advisor!?) I see a ton of bad habits in posts.

 

[DaveC426913]

It seems to me that the mandate for this sub forum needs to possibly be better-defined before anyone can start assigning boundaries about what's acceptable. I say "possible" because it is not taken as granted that there is anything wrong with the current mandate.

So: is the current mandate of this subforum well-defined? And is it allowing a disservice to occur?

 

[Cyrus]

The question is, is the engineer forums a place to discuss engineering, or a place for people to come and have engineering done for them. As I see it, it is currently the latter. No one discusses engineering. It's constantly I have to build this, I need to calculate that, do it for me! Now! Give me software! And there is the problem that people constantly post in general engineering what should be mechanical or aerospace engineering. Most of the threads are so pathetic, they last about two or three replies before the OP leaves because no one did their work for them. They don't have any meat to them.

 

[DaveC426913]

The question is, is the engineer forums a place to discuss engineering, or a place for people to come and have engineering done for them. As I see it, it is currently the latter. No one discusses engineering. It's constantly I have to build this, I need to calculate that, do it for me! Now! Give me software!

So, if the latter were eliminated, would the forum automagically fill up with engineering discussions?

It seems to me that the crux of the problem is, not two-pronged, but merely one-pronged. i.e.: engineers are not discussing engineering.

 

[Cyrus]

So, if the latter were eliminated, would the forum automagically fill up with engineering discussions?

It seems to me that the crux of the problem is, not two-pronged, but merely one-pronged. i.e.: engineers are not discussing engineering.

I think that's true, and its also a problem due to a lack of engineers to discuss anything.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that's true, and its also a problem due to a lack of engineers to discuss anything.

So, the only question then becomes:

Is the current signal-to-noise ratio of the Engineering fora causing Engineers - who might otherwise come and participate - to stay away?

 

[Born2bwire]

So, if the latter were eliminated, would the forum automagically fill up with engineering discussions?

It seems to me that the crux of the problem is, not two-pronged, but merely one-pronged. i.e.: engineers are not discussing engineering.

What in the world would you talk about though? I have no idea what I would talk about if I were to discuss engineering. For the most part, this sounds no different from the physics forums. Most of the time people come to the other forums to ask for clarification about a lesson, a homework question, or something along those lines. Very rarely do people come in and ask a question about physics, like about current physics research, without an underlying motive.

 

[Cyrus]

What in the world would you talk about though? I have no idea what I would talk about if I were to discuss engineering. For the most part, this sounds no different from the physics forums. Most of the time people come to the other forums to ask for clarification about a lesson, a homework question, or something along those lines. Very rarely do people come in and ask a question about physics, like about current physics research, without an underlying motive.

Are you kidding me? Current work people are doing, interesting engineering projects going on around the world in various areas. Technical challenges they are facing, and similarities to past historical projects. I could talk for hours upon hours about aerospace engineering simply from a historical perspective, because I take the time to read as many books on the subject as I can (not textbooks, but aircraft program overviews).

There was actually a very good thread here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=361796

where people were sharing books, links, and NASA papers on the topic. I am going to finish one of the books discussed in the thread by Fred tomorrow (Lockheed Stealth by Sweetman). It was one of a very few damn interesting threads.

 

[Chronos]

I choose to ignore 'invention' threads. I have yet to see one worthy of any effort on my part. I agree a lucent explanation of the concept and approach might pique interest. Ignoring poorly constructed ideas requires no investment of time or energy.

 

[Born2bwire]

No, I'm not kidding. I really have little interest in such discussions myself. Most people that come to this website do so under the guise that it is a site that aids in the teaching and learning of physics and by extension mathematics and engineering. Even in the namesake forums I rarely see physics discussions except maybe in the more specialized forums like Quantum or Astrophysics. Certainly my own disinterest is not an indication of other engineers at large but I do not think that the majority of those that are drawn to this site come here for the reasons you would like. I agree with Dave's earlier assertion that the lack of discussions of interest to you is not due to the overabundance of chaff in the forums but rather with a lack of willing participants. You would probably have better luck if you restricted such expectations to the more specialized forums like the aeronautical forum.

 

[Cyrus]

No, I'm not kidding. I really have little interest in such discussions myself. Most people that come to this website do so under the guise that it is a site that aids in the teaching and learning of physics and by extension mathematics and engineering. Even in the namesake forums I rarely see physics discussions except maybe in the more specialized forums like Quantum or Astrophysics. Certainly my own disinterest is not an indication of other engineers at large but I do not think that the majority of those that are drawn to this site come here for the reasons you would like. I agree with Dave's earlier assertion that the lack of discussions of interest to you is not due to the overabundance of chaff in the forums but rather with a lack of willing participants. You would probably have better luck if you restricted such expectations to the more specialized forums like the aeronautical forum.

So that we are on the same page, do you mean a forum dedicated specifically to aeronautics, or the aerospace sub-forum of PF?

But also, I add, that these two types of discussion are not mutually exclusive because it ties in real world engineering with the theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

...I do not think that the majority of those that are drawn to this site come here for the reasons you would like. I agree with Dave's earlier assertion that the lack of discussions of interest to you is not due to the overabundance of chaff in the forums but rather with a lack of willing participants.

I believe it is generally understood (or at least, assumed) that the theoretical sciences of PF (physics and math etc. fora) have reattracted many professionals because it has been so dedicated to discarding the chaff. PF was not always so high quality.

If the Engineering Forum followed the same principle, it should draw Engineers back.

This is what I'm expecting Cyrus to say.

 

[FredGarvin]

Ugh. I agree completely. Unfortunately I think there's nothing we can do about this, especially in an area that does have a degree of conceptualization, i.e. preliminary design. I have complained about the overly speculative posts by even degreed engineers that has been happening (and seems to have died off a bit). I think the best we can do is to keep checking the education levels of the people posting and if they should know better, then to hammer away at them. Perhaps we just haven't established the proper atmosphere in the engineering side.

There are a lot of times I wish I could show what I work on but I just plain can't. We have very tight control over our designs/methods, even what we can have pictures taken of. I am even weary of posting pictures of what our public work has been. It's just that kind of environment my company and business sector operate in. I am sure other people are in the same boat.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are a lot of times I wish I could show what I work on but I just plain can't. We have very tight control over our designs/methods, even what we can have pictures taken of. I am even weary of posting pictures of what our public work has been. It's just that kind of environment my company and business sector operate in. I am sure other people are in the same boat.

That is frustrating, While most of my work is not defense work, almost everything job-related is proprietary information. It would be great to bounce ideas around here and get some input but that is not in the cards. I love self-employment, but sometimes it is tough being the Lone Ranger.

Most "inventors" [outside of the work setting] that I have met are chasing rainbows. It isn't surprising that we see a lot of that here.

 

[Moonbear]

I have a couple of questions for the engineers about these "invention" threads to help sort out exactly what the problem is in order to then figure out what the solution should be.

What is the problem with the invention ideas? Are they ridiculously far-fetched and impossible ideas that border on crackpottery and have no place at PF at all? Or, are they something that might be a good idea, but isn't developed enough to really be at a stage where sound engineering principles can be applied?

If they are totally far-fetched, they probably belong deleted in the overly-speculative post category.

If they are just too undeveloped but might contain a good idea that's not de facto impossible, maybe they just belong someplace else.

In the case of undeveloped but not outright impossible ideas, what types of things are the inventors seeking in coming here? Are they looking for general opinions on whether it is a good idea, something that really fills a need, actually novel, etc.? Are they seeking assistance on developing an idea into an actual design? Or, do they think they already have an adequate design/idea and are trying to get advice on how build it?

If they are just looking for advice on whether it fills a need, is novel, etc., maybe those threads belong in GD.

If they are seeking advice on how to work through the design process, maybe they just need a subforum where they can ask for that and people who are willing to participate can do so, and where it doesn't detract from other engineering discussions in the main forums.

If they think they have an adequate design (and perhaps don't) and are seeking advice on how to build it, I'm not so sure where to put it. Maybe GD again. It might be the same place to put threads from people who have legitimate plans for building something (not a new invention, but plans from some other source for them to just build something) and need advice on how to interpret them, or on sources of supplies, or of an acceptable, safe substitution for a part they can't get, etc.

I can imagine there are a lot of "invention" and "how-to-build-it" type threads and ideas that don't violate the PF global guidelines and are reasonable to ask somewhere on PF, but aren't actually engineering. Maybe I'd even lump them into the same category as the kids working on science fair projects who need help designing some apparatus for their experiment or figuring out how to build something for a project they're doing, or those robot wars contests, etc.

I wouldn't necessarily want those threads placed too far from the engineering forums, though, mainly because the engineers here tend to be the people best able to answer those types of questions, even if they aren't directly engineering questions.

Or, maybe there just needs to be a sticky thread or FAQ thread or library entry that gives a run-down of some basic steps of the invention process and says, "If you haven't gotten to this step..." whatever that step is, "then the topic is not yet suitable for our engineering forums," and direct people posting such threads there. Maybe some resources on how to contact trustworthy sources to work with someone with a good idea to help develop the invention to the next level would be appropriate as well, if giving that sort of advice is beyond the scope of what can reasonably be given here, would be something to point these people toward, and then shut down their thread if their ideas are still too vague to really be discussed from an engineering standpoint. It may just be that they need to know how to hire an engineer to do what they are asking because it isn't something people can just do for free.

Just tossing out some ideas on the different types of issues and some possible ways to approach it so we don't alienate people who might actually take a keen interest in the discussions around here even if the question they are asking just isn't within the scope of the type of assistance that can be offered here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are they looking for general opinions on whether it is a good idea, something that really fills a need, actually novel, etc.? Are they seeking assistance on developing an idea into an actual design? Or, do they think they already have an adequate design/idea and are trying to get advice on how build it?


I can imagine there are a lot of "invention" and "how-to-build-it" type threads and ideas that don't violate the PF global guidelines and are reasonable to ask somewhere on PF, but aren't actually engineering. Maybe I'd even lump them into the same category as the kids working on science fair projects who need help designing some apparatus for their experiment or figuring out how to build something for a project they're doing, or those robot wars contests, etc.

There's certainly no dearth of people asking for help in getting from a concept to the next step, or asking where their ideas might have flaws (or at least, that's what they should be asking ).

Maybe Moonbears' right. Maybe a separate forum to wrangle these threads. It would keep the Engineering forum for professional discussion without totally turfing inventor-wannabes out into the cold.

 

[FredGarvin]

Those are some good points Moonbear. I think the vast majority we are seeing right now are fueled (pardon the pun) by the whole "go green" movement. We tend to see a lot of people with perpetual motion machines and just plain bad understanding of the basics. But they took the time to learn a solid modeling or illustration package and have a nice picture to make them feel good about it.

The other group are the people that really are totally clueless and say things like "how do I design a rocket or jet engine" or "Where can I get free software to do this?" You want to help, but it becomes readily apparent that they really are clueless and answering their questions is just feeding the beast.

IMO a lot of the threads would have the possibility to turn into good threads IF the OPs had the background to really discuss the engineering side of things, which they don't. Heck, things are so broad reaching I don't have the engineering chops to talk about a lot of things that get asked.

A perfect example:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=375742

 

[Phyisab****]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=375597

This thread is ridiculous. How was it not deleted? The guy doesn't even believe an MIT professor when he told him it wouldn't work!

 

[dlgoff]

Any electrical engineers here remember when they first became interested in electronics? Wouldn't it have been nice to have Physics Forums around then?

I rest my case.

 

[turbo]

Any electrical engineers here remember when they first became interested in electronics? Wouldn't it have been nice to have Physics Forums around then?

I rest my case.

I don't know, dlg... If they couldn't express themselves using $$$$$ commercial software and provide proof of having conducted $$$$$ patent searches, they shouldn't be allowed to post their piddly ideas. [/sarcasm]

I used to dissect tube-driven electronics as a kid, and during college and afterward, I substantially supported myself by rebuilding, restoring, and tuning up "primitive" amps like Leo Fender's creations, Gretch, and Gibson amps, Supros and related. Leo's stuff was easy to work on, and easy to figure out, but the true point-to-point circuits were horrible, if you hadn't worked through similar ones previously and had to puzzle them out. I got some help and supplies and equipment over the years from the old ham-radio-club guys (most are long gone, now) but that was as close to electronics college as I ever got.

 

[Cyrus]

Any electrical engineers here remember when they first became interested in electronics? Wouldn't it have been nice to have Physics Forums around then?

I rest my case.

No, you didn't even make a case. These are not kids playing with electronics that are posting, they are adults - and are treated as such.

 

[DaveC426913]

IMO a lot of the threads would have the possibility to turn into good threads IF the OPs had the background to really discuss the engineering side of things, which they don't.

OK but how does this complaining (not just you, but in general) lead to any action on PF's part?

Unless we're going to start demanding credentials before people post, we are stuck with the posts we get. Alternately, we can set some parameters for acceptability and then just lock every post that doesn't meet the params.

There are external forces we cannot change. All we can do is do something with the things we can change.

 

[FredGarvin]

I agree. There isn't a whole lot we can do other than really clamp down on the speculative post rule. Zapper had made a mention that at one time he was accused of being a bit heavy handed in that aspect. I think we need the same, heavy handedness for a while.

 

[FredGarvin]

I don't know, dlg... If they couldn't express themselves using $$$$$ commercial software and provide proof of having conducted $$$$$ patent searches, they shouldn't be allowed to post their piddly ideas. [/sarcasm]

How about starting a post with an ounce of thought?

- We aren't saying they SHOULD have access to expensive software. We're saying that there is a large amount of newbs that think software is the answer if they had it (for free most of the time) and no thought needs to be put into the problem other than entering it into some magical program.

- A patent search can be done for free. Granted, not to the full extent of getting full patent prints, but they are informative enough,. They are not that difficult. And I don't think that if someone starts a thread about their revolutionary invention, that it's too much to ask of them to do one to support their claims.

 

[DaveC426913]

How about starting a post with an ounce of thought?

- We aren't saying they SHOULD have access to expensive software. We're saying that there is a large amount of newbs that think software is the answer if they had it (for free most of the time) and no thought needs to be put into the problem other than entering it into some magical program.

- A patent search can be done for free. Granted, not to the full extent of getting full patent prints, but they are informative enough,. They are not that difficult. And I don't think that if someone starts a thread about their revolutionary invention, that it's too much to ask of them to do one to support their claims.

Again, how does this translate into something actionable by PF?

Do we simply lock every post that doesn't meet some set of guidelines?

 

[Cyrus]

Again, how does this translate into something actionable by PF?

Do we simply lock every post that doesn't meet some set of guidelines?

Why is that a bad thing? Right now they just post willy-nilly. Don't like the rules, don't post.

 

[Ronnin]

I think the problem here is PF is inherently an academic forum. I am not an engineer but I do deal with "mechanical" issues from time to time in my line of work. If I had a specific question such as, "I have an object doing a X function that has to move at specific speed Y and has a weight of Z, what HP motor would I use? Chain drive? Belt drive? What size? ect." Sometimes I can recommend a solution other times I call technical at whatever manufacturer because I simply don't have the experience having never worked with their particular application. Would I ask this type of question on PF? Probably not. I would rather ask why the the application engineer recomended whatever he did and the theory behind it. I don't know why there isn't more of this type of stuff (like on EngTips) but I think the culture here is different and doesn't always mesh well with application level details.

I have noticed when people do ask these type of questions there is never a shortage of answers for the most part. I think any engineer or technical minded person here does enjoy engaging to help when the questions are well formed and have involved some prior thought or research. Sometimes I think people post these "inventions" just for the sake of hearing of hearing any kind of response. Maybe they believe since a "technical" bothered to respond their "invention" must have some kind of merit. The only way to get rid of these kind of posts is to either lock them early or simply do not respond.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is that a bad thing? Right now they just post willy-nilly. Don't like the rules, don't post.

And who does that serve?

How does it help all these other people who have questions and aren't engineers?

The risk here, I think, is elitism.

 

[Cyrus]

And who does that serve?

How does it help all these other people who have questions and aren't engineers?

The risk here, I think, is elitism.

It helps them by framing their question in such a way that other trained people (who they are asking anyways) can understand. As it stands, their threads are convoluted and time consuming to understand. I for one, am not wasting my time trying to figure out what should be explained properly by the OP.

It's really not asking all that much to do a background patent search, explain the context for your idea, and any analysis you have or pictures of a working model.

Honestly, if you can do that then you really shouldn't be wasting peoples time posting here.

 

[DaveC426913]

It helps them by framing their question in such a way that other trained people (who they are asking anyways) can understand.

No, all it does is stop them from posting. They might be able to reframe their question but they're pretty much out in the cold.

I for one, am not wasting my time trying to figure out what should be explained properly by the OP.

So don't.

Or put another way: it is no more your forum than any other member's, even an inventor wannabe.

Honestly, if you can do that then you really shouldn't be wasting peoples time posting here.

Well, that's the thing isn"t it? Are you speaking only for yourself, or do you think your viewpoint speaks for the majority of PFers?


I'm not trying to shoot you down or completely disagree with you, I'm trying to tease out any changes you're suggesting that are simply for your own personal benefit from those that are best for PF (of which these people are also members). But personally, I think you should be doing that so I/we don't have to...

 

[Cyrus]

No, all it does is stop them from posting. They might be able to reframe their question but they're pretty much out in the cold.

Too bad so sad?

So don't.

Honestly, I don't.

Well, that's the thing isn"t it? Are you speaking only for yourself, or do you think your viewpoint speaks for the majority of PFers?

It wouldn't really matter because aside from Fred, minger, and myself, hardly anyone else posts in the engineering section.

But more to the point, PF cannot be all things to all people. So, do we want it to attract people who know what they are talking about, or not? Because clearly we are in need of them and the current way of doing business is not attracting them to engineering.

 

[DaveC426913]

Too bad so sad?

So, we're not here to help people with their physics questions? We have some other, more noble purpose?

That's sarcastic and rhetorical.

Seriously, is your idea going to serve the best interests of as many PFers as possible? Can you say that your idea is putting the needs of the many over the needs of the few? Or the one?

 

[Cyrus]

So, we're not here to help people with their physics questions? We have some other, more noble purpose?

There is a massive difference between answering peoples physics question, and doing a full engineering analysis for them for free. Besides, they're not even asking physics questions. They are asking tech questions, like how to weld. This is a good question for a shop tech: literally, because I have asked a shop tech that before. I don't seek engineers for non-engineering questions.

Seriously, is your idea going to serve the best interests of as many PFers as possible? Can you say that your idea is putting the needs of the many over the needs of the few? Or the one?

Yes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, I've stated my case. Not much more to say on that front.

 

[Cyrus]

Think of it this way. I am an eye doctor with a series of lenses. Right now, you have glasses on. When I change something the question is: better or worse?

I simply don't see how leaving things the way they are will magically make things better.

 

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps a good middle-ground might be to set up a template, loosely analagous to the homework fora. They would be obliged to post their ideas/questions along with their answers to such questions as:
- have you applied for a patent?
- have you run numbers on your designs?
etc.
This would accomplish several things:
- they would be prompted with what they could be doing without effort on our part (except the template), encouraging pro-active behaviour
- there would be much less required effort on our part to give them the customary answers; it is all laid out and easy for us to read their current status at a glance
- our responses could be reduced dramatically, becoming as expedient as: "Please come back when you've reached step 4".

Think of it this way. I am an eye doctor with a series of lenses. Right now, you have glasses on. When I change something the question is: better or worse?

I simply don't see how leaving things the way they are will magically make things better.

I never suggested there shouldn't be a change.

 

[Cyrus]

I was lazy, but just finished reading moonbears post. She has excellent points.

 

[DaveC426913]

If we do create a new subforum, I think Cyrus' subject header has inspired the name for it:

Pretengineers.

 

[russ_watters]

Cyrus, what is your perception of the fraction of threads in the engineering forum that are under-developed inventions? In my opinion, it is at worst 1 in 10 and I consider that a pretty good signal to noise ratio.

Moreover, I consider it part of the purpose of the forum to try to help such people. These guys (even the "doods, check out my design" guy) seem to me to be genuinely interested in developing an idea and just don't know how. And the ideas (as per Moonbear's question) are not typicaly crackpot ideas. So I don't see any real violation of the guidelines or basis for locking/deleting such threads outright.

 

[Cyrus]

To me, the point of PF should be to promote science first and foremost. So, if someone has an idea the goal should be to have them think through it using proper methodologies.

It serves no one any good when people come in fling stuff against the wall and hope something sticks. In the thread you are referring to, the guy said "opinions?e.pdf" and that was it. Not even a basic discussion concerning what it was - an absolute joke (let's be honest here).

There are quite a lot of questions also about calculating (fill in the blank) to do (fill in the blank) for their project. Its ok to ask questions like that, but then - at the very least- talk about what it is you're trying to do. What websites you looked at in terms of products that make what your calculating as a sanity check for your numbers, and what level of accuracy and assumptions you are willing to make. This is, at the very least, what I expect an engineering student to be able to ask. But I never, ever, see anyone do this.

Also, because people don't bother to do this, they post new threads every time they run into a new problem on their project. They should just consolidate their project into a singular thread. There is no need to make multiple threads on each thing that crops up on their project.

If I had to guess a number, I'd say 1/30 threads are interesting. Maybe less. I just constantly see: "hey I need this e-book", "hey, set up this software for me", "hey, do a literature search for me"

To summarize, there is an engineering process one follows to develop an idea. It is not used or encouraged here, ever.

 

[rootX]

I don't have sufficient engineering background but I agree with the OP. Engineering is more than coming up with an invention and hope it works without doing any analysis.

 

[story645]

Engineering is more than coming up with an invention and hope it works without doing any analysis.

But the posters are trying to have some analysis, done for them by other PF posters. That's the worst part about these threads (the comp sci forum gets them occasionally too), the utter lack of any real effort to find a solution if it forces them to deal with some of the less shiny aspects (like implementation, practicality, and math) of their ideas. Even a simple "I tried to google X, found Y, these seems off so help" would raise my opinion of most of these types of posters.

 

[DaveC426913]

But the posters are trying to have some analysis, done for them by other PF posters. That's the worst part about these threads (the comp sci forum gets them occasionally too), the utter lack of any real effort to find a solution if it forces them to deal with some of the less shiny aspects (like implementation, practicality, and math) of their ideas. Even a simple "I tried to google X, found Y, these seems off so help" would raise my opinion of most of these types of posters.

Part of the template I'm suggesting would list "What answers have you sought and found?" as a required step.