It's an incredible book that covers an incredible amount of information in circa 1,000 pages, but fair enough it's probably not a book for you.
As for CAN Bus....my edition from 1996 (yes 1996, I just looked at it) covered CAN Bus. And of course it covers planetary gears v clutches; these are basic systems used by most brands. But obviously it's not going to include proprietary systems from all makes, so I admit my claim that it covers all systems was incorrect. However, it almost certainly covers the engineering principles underlying those systems.
It does touch on some non-Bosch proprietary systems where the authors deem it sufficiently important in the context of the book.
Last edited:
I tried to edit above but was out of time...I just wanted to add that the book covers principles that apply to the automotive world but are of a general nature; for example, the fundamentals of semiconductor technology; electrical engineering principles; electronics; materials hardness; chemical elements; basic principles of threaded fasteners; and tribology to quote random examples I found flicking through for this post.
Innovation can have many causes; surely technical innovations come from necessity, and is there really a necessity for innovation today?
We have safe cheap global transport, sanitation, education, MASSIVE information transfer through the internet, medication, medical scanners, films/documentaries/debates/lectures/music freely accessable by something in your pocket, that's cheap enough for working class people like me to easily afford. We have a goods/food distribution system that efficiently spans the globe. What more do we want/need?
The only problem with medicine is it's made to hide symptoms, rather than cure, but that's because of the way that it's funded.
The main problem we have with technology now, is it's trying to advance too far; instead of to dials on a microwave, there's a myriad of buttons, instead of two dials on a car heater, there's a touch screen for heaven's sake.
Innovation in this context means innovations that lead to more efficiency in manufacturing.
That leads to lower need for actual labourers.
In the first instance less jobs would lead to less wealth, but the rise in efficiency leads to lower product prices so higher wages become possible for those jobs that remain.
As time goes on, those jobs that disappeared from manufacturing come back in the service sector, like travel agencies, insurance companies, etc, that working people can afford due to higher possible wages due to rise in efficiency. There's an indispensable role for labour unions in this cycle.
By fighting for higher wages, they force manufacturers to innovate.
Andrew mentioned pick-and-place machines. You think you could buy a great DAC for $ 600 if all those parts had to be hand-soldered by lots of people in large halls??
Jan
That leads to lower need for actual labourers.
In the first instance less jobs would lead to less wealth, but the rise in efficiency leads to lower product prices so higher wages become possible for those jobs that remain.
As time goes on, those jobs that disappeared from manufacturing come back in the service sector, like travel agencies, insurance companies, etc, that working people can afford due to higher possible wages due to rise in efficiency. There's an indispensable role for labour unions in this cycle.
By fighting for higher wages, they force manufacturers to innovate.
Andrew mentioned pick-and-place machines. You think you could buy a great DAC for $ 600 if all those parts had to be hand-soldered by lots of people in large halls??
Jan
Last edited:
To illustrate how far this has gone, I just looked it up for the EU:
Service activities represented more than 80 % of total employment in the Netherlands and Malta (both 83 %), Belgium (82 %) as well as Luxembourg, France and Denmark (all 81 %). Actual manufacturing and agriculture is the remainder. So only about 1 in five workers actually manufactures or grows anything. That's the power of innovation - only 1 in 5 workers is needed to manufacture all those gadgets and cars and houses and planes and what have you we have in abundance.
Jan
Service activities represented more than 80 % of total employment in the Netherlands and Malta (both 83 %), Belgium (82 %) as well as Luxembourg, France and Denmark (all 81 %). Actual manufacturing and agriculture is the remainder. So only about 1 in five workers actually manufactures or grows anything. That's the power of innovation - only 1 in 5 workers is needed to manufacture all those gadgets and cars and houses and planes and what have you we have in abundance.
Jan
Last edited:
I am genuinely shocked at how cheap some stuff is, even though I understand a bit any manufacturing, I still can't get my head around it. My FIIO DAC cost around £120, how much of that is the cost of production? I've seen garden furniture cheap than it would cost me to get the cardboard boxes that it comes in. A bench grinder is cheaper than the two grinding wheels that it comes with.
A lot of people are worried about the affects of AI on the labour market, but as you've mentioned, there has already been massive changes already, there seems to be a feedback effect or something that brings back an equilibrium, every time - unless sometimes it doesn't happen, and this is what causes civilisations to fail.
A lot of people are worried about the affects of AI on the labour market, but as you've mentioned, there has already been massive changes already, there seems to be a feedback effect or something that brings back an equilibrium, every time - unless sometimes it doesn't happen, and this is what causes civilisations to fail.
We all are mostly service based economies as it's all made in China or elsewhere. Though even there the numbers are dropping, due to innovation and automation.
Having said that, all our manufacturing - SMT assembly mostly - is done in the UK. For volumes of around 100k per year it's cheaper than China once you factor in all the costs.
It's an interesting dynamic. We used to outsource manufacturing to China which increased wages and wealth there.
It made it possible to sell product to China but it got also more expensive to outsource production.
Then it shifts to other countries, Malaysia for instance, and the cycle repeats. In the long run, everybody profits.
That's why import tariffs are so damaging. In the long run, they increase the wealth for a select few that control it but the nation, the continent, the world gets poorer.
Jan
It made it possible to sell product to China but it got also more expensive to outsource production.
Then it shifts to other countries, Malaysia for instance, and the cycle repeats. In the long run, everybody profits.
That's why import tariffs are so damaging. In the long run, they increase the wealth for a select few that control it but the nation, the continent, the world gets poorer.
Jan
I find it fascinating how these threads morph into things that have absolutely nothing to do with the initial post or to the title itself.
I started this thread over 500 posts ago to discuss things such as saying "Me and my friend" instead of "My friend and I", or "I'm like" being inserted unnecessarily into the conversation.
Essentially to discuss, as the title says, "The Degradation of Proper English."
After going through a wide variety of different subjects the thread is now discussing the pros and cons of where various products are being manufactured.
This is not a complaint, and I have no ownership of the thread just for starting it. The way people take one subject and divert into something else and then into yet another subject over and over again seems to be a rather common practice here.
I started this thread over 500 posts ago to discuss things such as saying "Me and my friend" instead of "My friend and I", or "I'm like" being inserted unnecessarily into the conversation.
Essentially to discuss, as the title says, "The Degradation of Proper English."
After going through a wide variety of different subjects the thread is now discussing the pros and cons of where various products are being manufactured.
This is not a complaint, and I have no ownership of the thread just for starting it. The way people take one subject and divert into something else and then into yet another subject over and over again seems to be a rather common practice here.
Indeed, but as OP you can certainly encourage people to get back on topic and ask people to start a new thread for these unrelated matters, many of which I have enjoyed.
So it seems we’re discussing forum protocol now instead! Sorry about that!
I hope my use of language in so doing was not using degraded English! 🙂
Perhaps in this long and winding thread the use of "off of" has been discussed, but is one that intensely irritates me. At one stage my teen daughter (she's 36 now) got into using "off of". Every time she used it I reminded her that if "off of" existed as a term, then "on of" surely must also exist.
She has now emigrated to Australia, and picked up the rising inflexion at the end of every sentence. However she has made a conscious effort to stop doing that, with 100% success, and now speaks like a regular Brit again.
She has now emigrated to Australia, and picked up the rising inflexion at the end of every sentence. However she has made a conscious effort to stop doing that, with 100% success, and now speaks like a regular Brit again.
I think it goes without saying that it looks wrong, Jan.
"Your order is being shipped" would look right, but includes the massive burden of an extra word!
"Your order is being shipped" would look right, but includes the massive burden of an extra word!
I read that “off of” is used much more frequently in American English than it is in British English.
Can you say “I took it off of the shelf” or do you need to say “I took it off the shelf”?
Is “off of” actually grammatically correct?
Read more here: https://grammarhow.com/off-of/