TheOwnersManual
Dobe Doinat's Owner's Manual

Home
Get Email Updates
X Zachary Wright's Blog

Admin Password

Remember Me

51773 Curiosities served
Share on Facebook

Peter's Dreamy Design Solutions
Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Read/Post Comments (3)

If I recall correctly, all of the ideas that I will list below were told to me by my brother, Peter Hartman, which he told me he dreamed about and then either wrote them down or he could remember his dreams, I'm not sure. With his phenomenal mind and memory, my bet is that he remembered most of his dreams quite well.

In any case, I remember three of these, and I'm betting there are other examples that his friends and relatives could add to, in comments to this blog, if they could. I'd like to hear them.

The first example was an idea that I actually submitted to "A Major Airframe Manufacturer In the NW", in 1988, and I kept the carbon copy, which I just came across.

It was submitted to that company because I worked there at the time, and also Peter's idea was for an airplane. Here's some background: there can be extreme tire wear during many landings, and these tires may have to be replaced, at a cost of thousands of dollars, each.

Peter said he dreamed that the "hub" of the airplane's tires would be calibrated to spin the tires at exactly the rate that they would need to spin to avoid massive tread abrasion on landings. The design solution was to think of a child's pinwheel toy. You blow on the pinwheel, and it spins, right? Since the airplane has forward momentum through the air, the hubs could be shaped (through wind-tunnel testing at first) to save the airlines millions of dollars!

The result of my entering this as an Employee Suggestion is in my memory only, since I have not found the "results" document. Needless to say, it was rejected, else it would be commonplace today.

It actually took me asking after the results for months and months. I think it was probably never looked at, to tell the truth, although I cannot prove that. I don't think a very good system was in place, or I would have been notified without having to constantly seek out the results, and then to be told verbally.

Eventually, (a verbal response from my Supervisor, if my recollection is accurate, which would account for why I don't have the documented rejection), it was explained to me that "sometime during WWII, that this idea was thought of and tested and the pilots complained that it introduced a gyroscopic effect that made the handling of the airplane unstable.

My response is that what if the design had ACTUALLY been tested in a wind tunnel, as well as some proximity switch or some other method of keeping the "pinwheel" stationary until almost on the ground, it would not have unstable gyroscopic effects! No, I believe it is an opportunity missed, through someone not wanting to do the study, back in 1988-89. (Also, I don't think they really intended on paying anything for "Suggestions".)

The second item had to do with why a horse's saddle is traditionally placed in the middle of the animals back, which is the weakest part of the backbone. No, he reasoned, the saddle should be redesigned to place the weight of the rider on the horse's pelvis, just above the back legs.

As I recall, I thought about this and my response to him was that while the horse might be better off, the rider would have even more "bounce" during a gallop, and maybe it wouldn't be reasonable for the rider.

Again, as I recall, Peter replied with, "well, just design in shock absorbers!" (I will leave it to those more familiar with riding horses to give their feedback about this...

Here's the final idea that I remember he came up with. I don't have a complete understanding of it; perhaps if you remember him talking about this, you could refresh my memory? I think that years later, someone actually did this... I may have seen it on the internet.

Peter thought that, on a motorcycle, instead of the rider sitting on and around the engine with gears and linkages, etc, that the engine be made "direct drive" when placed inside the back wheel. It would probably be more efficient, less parts, less weight... safer???

It seems like there was something else about that last one, but I can't remember anymore, perhaps others can help remember in the comments?

Thanks!

Oh, yeah, and HAPPY 23RD!


Read/Post Comments (3)

Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Back to Top

Powered by JournalScape © 2001-2010 JournalScape.com. All rights reserved.
All content rights reserved by the author.
custsupport@journalscape.com