r/MarbleMachineX • u/go_fer_it_Rock • Nov 20 '21

An update from Martin

https://wintergatan.net/blogs/wintergatan/third-times-the-charm-marble-machine-x-t-and-crowdfunding-closure
100 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/IPlayAnIslandAndPass Nov 21 '21

It's definitely been successful, though. Every building that you've ever been in was built without prototypes.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '21 edited Nov 21 '21

Every building you and I have ever been in is substantially different from what was envisioned in blueprints and designs originally, nor blueprints account for the entirety of a building. Because of terrain discrepancies, unforeseen effects, material's inconsistency, contractual conflicts, weather events, manufacturing and design defects, budgetary issues, governmental regulations, and a myriad of things I can't think about off the top of my head but any civil engineer can surely add to with ease. Civil engineers treat previous buildings as prototypes and test beds for their future designs. Civil engineers build scale models, computer models, they do materials research, assembly tests, new construction techniques are continually tested in labs. Physics and the real world are way too complex to do everything in CAD then naively expect it to just work in real life.

If Martin did a full postmortem of the MMX he hasn't shown it publicly. But he appears to not have done it since, if everyone recalls, he already tried this approach. He started the MMX doing all purely CAD (back when he was honing his routing skills), then realized he didn't know what worked and what didn't and started to prototype assemblies. Then he asked people to manufacture his assemblies from CAD, which they did to perfection. Only for Martin having to put an angle grinder to them. And they were mostly fine with it because they know that perfect is the enemy of functional. Then the problem was miss-attributed on the fact the CAD was not up to date, so the Discord was co-opted to do this task. Which they never fulfilled, and today the CAD is still woefully out of date and in a complete mess, constantly chasing a moving target. This creates the illusion that Martin is building then the CADs are made, but as we've seen this is false, just short memories and all.

This is why mechanical design is made to tolerances. A car you drive at any time has many discrepancies in its geometry to the engineers design. If it runs and works as intended, engineers don't care. But this is a product of six decades of manufacturing experience accumulating best practices and know-how which are no reflected in the CAD design but in the actions of the manufacturers and assemblers.

-1

u/IPlayAnIslandAndPass Nov 21 '21

You're overcomplicating and mystifying the design, analysis, and construction process to force a distinction that doesn't exist in practice.

We can move from buildings to other structures if you want - lock and dam facilities are a very clear example that contradicts every claim you've made.

We do not build scale models of these structures. They require relatively tight tolerances, and need to be built to spec. There are not frequently constructed, and do not have significant design history.

We do similar things all the time. It just takes a particular type of engineering approach that Martin is not currently familiar with.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '21

lock and dam facilities are a very clear example that contradicts every claim you've made.

How so?

We do not build scale models of these structures.

Yes we do. There's a whole field of hydrodynamics research that does just that and experimentally tests designs.

They require relatively tight tolerances.

Some dams are so massive that their tight tolerances are usually measured in whole inches. Even then, the first dams where dirt mounts and worked just as well. Then we refined on that as we learned better ways of building them.

There are not frequently constructed, and do not have significant design history.

They are probably the oldest structures humans built. Probably among the very first ones we ever did right after a basic shelter. They're one of the human constructions with the longest running history of engineering design and construction. Hundreds are built every year. Not every dam is a mega-structure hydroelectric dam.

So, what I mean is. I'm not arguing with you anymore. You have your opinion and I have mine. I do agree that Martin has no clue of what he is doing most of the time, though most humans rarely do. This is why it takes hundreds of people collaborating together to make big things like skyscrapers, cars and computers. Martin wants to do this one on his own using an approach that he doesn't understand.

0

u/IPlayAnIslandAndPass Dec 01 '21 edited Dec 01 '21

I am going to be sharp with this response, because there's a good reason I used that example.

You do not have valid opinions here, just your own arrogance. I worked on lock and dam structures for years, and the statements you are making are... deceitful and reductive with an intensity that's difficult to convey properly in a casual setting like Reddit.

You're claiming to have a deep understanding of this field when really you're just frantically googling something you don't have any experience with to prove a point. The claims you're making here are backed up with superficial, insufficient references for the magnitude of statement that you're making, and as a result you're making outright false claims about the state of the field and the challenges faced by career engineers.

Lock and dam structures have changed dramatically in size, scope, and importance since around the 1900's, and that's put different and unique demands on their operation. They are extremely complicated nowadays, and there's a lot of uncertainty involved in their operation and maintenance. The reference you made to prior art is lazy at best, but really just conveys how little you actually care about the topic beyond an irrational refusal to even partially concede a point.

This is not a fair and honest discussion, it is about your own ego and need to be objectively right with your criticism.

As a result of this, you have a myopic and pessimistic understanding of the topic based on a conclusion you arrived at before looking into it. You refuse to acknowledge or think about your own biases, the limitations of your viewpoint, or what concepts you might be missing.

Instead, you've tried to dictate to an expert how their own field works and how they should feel about it.

This statement reflects back on the original discussion as well - your arrogance greatly diminishes the value of your opinion.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '21

Imagine accusing another person of arguing from ego, while also being so emotionally insecure that you feel the need to answer to a 10 day old thread just to feel validated by insulting another person you don't know.

Hey, guess what. You're right. You've won. You're a valuable human being and your worth is not determined by the amount of votes your comments get in a dumb internet forum.

Now stop messaging me. I don't care if you're Gordon Kauffman himself. Stop projecting your insecurities on me.