Existence Followup

I have decided to cut the timeframe for my follow-up down. At this
point it is clearly evident that the vast majority of people don't
really care much about this issue. There were many readers, but very
few actually wanted to contribute, regardless of the forum.

This all came about because I wanted to help my (former) fellow
designers. I wanted to create a robust and flexible toothed model of
bevel gears so that whoever needed such, for whatever reason, could
utilize this method.

Why 'former'? Two years ago I was faced with a decision, I chose
door #3. I no longer work in engineering. If you wish, you can read
up on this a little at
http://www.memagazine.org/aug06/departments/letters/letters.html. King
David did some research and ran across this.

I would like to know, if faced with a similar situation knowing you
have a wife and three young children, what would you do? Honestly, I
miss my former career very much. This is why I wanted to contribute,
no matter how small, to the field. But, it seems I no longer have the
desire, thank you David Janes. For, he has personally made it his
endeavor to piss on the last remaining embers of my former life. How
does it make you feel?

I do believe if you truly want to help people (which is one of the
fundamental functions of engineers) then you should go into teaching as
well. You might learn something of value yourself, namely how to
communicate with your fellow man. I've been watching you. It is
rather comfortable, sitting snuggly behind your monitor and lashing out
at people with your acid tongue. It is quite something else to do it
face-to-face. It takes a very cold heart to watch someone wither from
the inside.

When David L. Geesaman was the wise sage of
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.cad.pro-engineer?lnk=gschg&hl=en I
could not recall a time when he was so procedural and thorough in
administering negative comments. Without a doubt, David Janes is
intelligent and knowledgeable. These traits don't make a person
wise. A wise man admonishes with benevolence not malevolence. David,
you wanted your name in lights. Well, there you are. Yes, he was the
one who prompted this personal fiasco.

Now, on to a lighter tone.
<<SNIP>>
"...that place where everyone, from users to in touch management,
says 'what does this buy us' and finds a void."

As far as toothed gearing is concerned, my focus, I offer the
following:
Why would a company such as Stock Drive Products / Sterling Instrument,
a PTC PartsLink partner (https://sdp-si.com/eStore/), go to such
trouble creating 3D bevel gear models for download in which the user
can specify the number of teeth, from 2 to the number of teeth for the
specific model. I cannot find any evidence of crowning in any of the
models I downloaded.
Then there is RCV Engines, for on their technology page,
http://www.rcvengines.com/corporate/rcv_technology.htm, one can
download a slide presentation,
http://www.rcvengines.com/pdf_files/saeslide.pdf. If one cares to do
so, check out the illustration on page 3. David Janes can testify
himself that the gearing displayed was in fact created in Pro/ENGINEER.
I had contacted the company upon my first site of this in an
engineering journal. The engineer who replied was happy to supply me
with the company's models. These I passed along to Mr. Janes, for
his majesty to review. He never did get back to me on this point.
<<SNIP (personal contact)>>
"So, again, I'm the reductionist, the anti-romantic, the objectivist,
the skeptic: why is this needed/necessary? make a case for its
utility!"
Somewhere within these organizations the decision was made, by upper
management, to divert resources away from other matters to pursue the
individual endeavors. Feel free to contact the companies to inquire as
to why these foolhardy ventures were undertaken.
<<SNIP>>
"Better ~ hobby, gear design theorist striving for the perfect tooth
form."

Yes, this was somewhat of a hobby, to keep my sanity. But for those of
you who had a chance to view the original text, you will recall
straight from the beginning, "Of course no gear, according to Charles
Cooper in his article Issues of Gear Design Using 3D Solid Modeling
Systems on www.geartechnology.com, is truly accurate using CAD
systems."
I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE PERSUING PERFECT FORM!!!
I just wanted to make a good looking, robust, and flexible model for
people, I must reiterate, to use for whatever reason.

When I had sent the newer instruction set to Lord Janes, his reply was
equally narrow minded and full of excess rambling. I quote, "I've
gone through your new and old writings on gear design. Unfortunately, I
am a part time doctor, full time designer with Pro/e. I've taken about
10 PTC-authored courses on Pro/e and have done another couple dozen
tutorials on the same. The job you've so generously offered ~ to be
your technical advisor and editor ~ is worthy of a professional making
$80k/annum. The job was made definitely worthy of such a princely sum
by the fact that I'm faced with merging the information from two
documents to obtain all the information necessary for an adequate
tryout." The two documents stand separately. Apparently this was
lost on him.

Mark out.

 

Yes, there was a time I wrote a great deal more on this newsgroup, but
I don't recall any incidents relating to negative comments. Can you
explain?

Me or Mr Janes?

Dave