Post by ianl on Mar 8, 2008 9:02:32 GMT
Hi Dave S
Love it. However, just for fun and to bite the bullet (much regret later no doubt) as you want to play.
"I need to pass thru a door to enter another room.
Minimal evaluation, I shoulder charge the closed door which crashes open bursting the hinges and I enter the room with excellent result.
I thoroughly evaluate the mechanics of the door, approach it gently and turn the handle, apply a force to the door at the opposite side to the hinges and proceed into the room with excellent result."
Actually, this is a reasonable comment and critique but it has the same limits as the one on the mechanics below. Of course if it is a swing door then the hinges remain in tact and you just look a plonker for pushing so hard. ;D
"At my local garage there are two excellent mechanics. one, Ben, has just the bare minimum of tools in one small steel toolbox. Another, Fred, has a huge collection of premium SnapOn tools that are kept in an impressive SnapOn tool chest the size of a small minibus.
They both fix cars all day everyday using the same basic range of tools from each set respectively - with excellent results.
However every now and then Fred finds he has just the right tool for the job. Fred fids the job a breeze. Ben however finds it a right thingy and spends all day cursing and swearing but in the end gets excellent results (as far as the customer is concerened)
Ben didn't earn any bonuses that day tho.
In Fred and Ben's world cars don't change but methods and tools do. 25 years later - Ben has always had good results so he carries on fixin cars in the same way with the same tools. Fred on the other hand has invested heavily in the latest tools and car repair and service research. He wizzes thru 5 times as many cars as Ben and has cut the cost of servicing to his customers. He has also discovered ways of fixing some parts that previously could only replaced. Fred can now offer repairs that Ben can't, Ben might go out of business soon."
The great thing about lumps of metal, even those that rotate at great speed and under great torques is that they are frequently quantifiable and we know that, e.g. for a wheel to stay on when undergoing huge revolutions that we can take a torque wrench and apply a measured and precise amount of torque. We can repeatedly do this and reduce the applied torque until the wheel fails. Equally we can reasonably predict the affect of reduced lubrication or mm misalignment on a piston in the cylinder.
Of course the engine sits comfortably in a precision designed and engineered engine well (usually to small for us to do self repairs, there is some analogy to the foot and shoe ;D) and is cosseted by precisely measured shock resistence.
Now, as you rightly say, over time the essential aspects of a car have not change. Unlike the foot perhaps. Now although the tools may have changed we can still say that the new tool "A" needs to be able to apply the same amount of torque to wheel "a" that tool "B" used too do. Clearly a different tool, very high tech (maybe within 1 10,000th of an inch, sorry could not resist that jibe at scanners) but is the result any different.
However, with any given foot, that is largely unpredictable in the amounts of torque occurring at any given step upon any given terrain and influenced by huge forces proximal and distal to it and an unquantifiable influence of an individuals mood and propensity to whims of sudden changes in direction and speed - is it possible that the strife for new tools is:
a good thing?
a poor thing?
evidence of an unwillingness in mans psyche to accept that there are some things he cannot really change?
A ploy by manufacturers and marketers to make us spend more on things that simply do the same as the other stuff, but look nicer? The Jimmy Choos of biomechanics
"Sitting back and thinking 'this is good enough' isn't good enough, it doesn't advance you one step."
of course we may be sat back thinking this because we are exhausted at having tried all the other stuff and realised it can be simpler than what we thought. Is it possible that this is a more rational response?
"Being simplistic will fix most people most of the time but not everyone all of the time - shouldn't this be our ultimate goal?"
Or, keep it simple and apply a slightly different tool only when needed? Just don't let the new tool become the next biomechanical moral imperative.
"FFO's won't fix everything that you are presented with, so how will you evaluate the patient that need something else using your simple tool box."
Agreed and so let's train people to think outside the box
couldn't resist that one but maybe the box of tools is a different box.
"I don't believe that in depth evaluation and the ability to do in depth evaluation camn be replaced or equaled by simplistic paradigm."
This I think is a different question
Well this is me set up for a good hammering but hopefully the entertainment of the hammering will keep the rest of the folks smiling over the weekend.
Thanks Dave
Ian
Love it. However, just for fun and to bite the bullet (much regret later no doubt) as you want to play.
"I need to pass thru a door to enter another room.
Minimal evaluation, I shoulder charge the closed door which crashes open bursting the hinges and I enter the room with excellent result.
I thoroughly evaluate the mechanics of the door, approach it gently and turn the handle, apply a force to the door at the opposite side to the hinges and proceed into the room with excellent result."
Actually, this is a reasonable comment and critique but it has the same limits as the one on the mechanics below. Of course if it is a swing door then the hinges remain in tact and you just look a plonker for pushing so hard. ;D
"At my local garage there are two excellent mechanics. one, Ben, has just the bare minimum of tools in one small steel toolbox. Another, Fred, has a huge collection of premium SnapOn tools that are kept in an impressive SnapOn tool chest the size of a small minibus.
They both fix cars all day everyday using the same basic range of tools from each set respectively - with excellent results.
However every now and then Fred finds he has just the right tool for the job. Fred fids the job a breeze. Ben however finds it a right thingy and spends all day cursing and swearing but in the end gets excellent results (as far as the customer is concerened)
Ben didn't earn any bonuses that day tho.
In Fred and Ben's world cars don't change but methods and tools do. 25 years later - Ben has always had good results so he carries on fixin cars in the same way with the same tools. Fred on the other hand has invested heavily in the latest tools and car repair and service research. He wizzes thru 5 times as many cars as Ben and has cut the cost of servicing to his customers. He has also discovered ways of fixing some parts that previously could only replaced. Fred can now offer repairs that Ben can't, Ben might go out of business soon."
The great thing about lumps of metal, even those that rotate at great speed and under great torques is that they are frequently quantifiable and we know that, e.g. for a wheel to stay on when undergoing huge revolutions that we can take a torque wrench and apply a measured and precise amount of torque. We can repeatedly do this and reduce the applied torque until the wheel fails. Equally we can reasonably predict the affect of reduced lubrication or mm misalignment on a piston in the cylinder.
Of course the engine sits comfortably in a precision designed and engineered engine well (usually to small for us to do self repairs, there is some analogy to the foot and shoe ;D) and is cosseted by precisely measured shock resistence.
Now, as you rightly say, over time the essential aspects of a car have not change. Unlike the foot perhaps. Now although the tools may have changed we can still say that the new tool "A" needs to be able to apply the same amount of torque to wheel "a" that tool "B" used too do. Clearly a different tool, very high tech (maybe within 1 10,000th of an inch, sorry could not resist that jibe at scanners) but is the result any different.
However, with any given foot, that is largely unpredictable in the amounts of torque occurring at any given step upon any given terrain and influenced by huge forces proximal and distal to it and an unquantifiable influence of an individuals mood and propensity to whims of sudden changes in direction and speed - is it possible that the strife for new tools is:
a good thing?
a poor thing?
evidence of an unwillingness in mans psyche to accept that there are some things he cannot really change?
A ploy by manufacturers and marketers to make us spend more on things that simply do the same as the other stuff, but look nicer? The Jimmy Choos of biomechanics
"Sitting back and thinking 'this is good enough' isn't good enough, it doesn't advance you one step."
of course we may be sat back thinking this because we are exhausted at having tried all the other stuff and realised it can be simpler than what we thought. Is it possible that this is a more rational response?
"Being simplistic will fix most people most of the time but not everyone all of the time - shouldn't this be our ultimate goal?"
Or, keep it simple and apply a slightly different tool only when needed? Just don't let the new tool become the next biomechanical moral imperative.
"FFO's won't fix everything that you are presented with, so how will you evaluate the patient that need something else using your simple tool box."
Agreed and so let's train people to think outside the box
couldn't resist that one but maybe the box of tools is a different box."I don't believe that in depth evaluation and the ability to do in depth evaluation camn be replaced or equaled by simplistic paradigm."
This I think is a different question
Well this is me set up for a good hammering but hopefully the entertainment of the hammering will keep the rest of the folks smiling over the weekend.
Thanks Dave
Ian
)
I have more comfort now than anything I have tried in the past and I thank you for your skill and expertise and hope your new "orthotic manufacturing business" takes off as it should, coz I can certainly recommend the orthotics you produce 