"Electrical trumps mechanical"

[MysterE]

Hi all -

I was reading an comment/article on Slashdot today, http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/05...n-key-just-die, in which the author is discussing whether or not the ignition key for cars are going out of style.

While the article is interesting in general, one quote stood out to me: " The push-button ignition isn't perfect, but we know electrical trumps mechanical more often than not."

This peaked my curiosity. As robot builders, engineers, designers, etc, do you agree or disagree with the authors statement? Why or why not?

[Billfred]

(Full disclosure, I work at a GM dealer and have driven more than my fair share of push-button start cars.)

The way I see it, the purpose of a car key (or fob) is to authenticate that the holder should be able to start it. If we can eliminate other related aspects that create undesirable conditions (say, having to keep the key where a heavy key fob can twist the ignition to off), it's worth a look.

[Michael Hill]

Electronics help mechanical stuff to move, but without mechanical stuff, electrical stuff just blinks.

[JohnFogarty]

I'll say this since I was the victim of a rarer mechanical failure in the ignition of my Avalon. I would bet that it would have been cheaper to fix if it was only an electrical problem.

(By mechanical failure I mean that the key got stuck in the ignition and no one could get it out.)

[Gdeaver]

From my experience repairing things mechanical is usually nicer. It's visibly broken. Electronics on the other hand don't just fail, they get psychotic.

[FrankJ]

Of course your old fashion mechanical key can be copied for a figurative dollar anywhere keys are made. Your key fob can cost upwards of a couple hundred dollars to have a copy.

Another example of mechanical verses electrical is carburetors verses fuel electronic fuel injection. A simple carburetor is cheaper & more reliable than fuel injection. As you add demands to the control scheme eventually electronic fuel injection becomes a better choice.

Ultimately this is a chicken or the egg question.

[RunawayEngineer]

Starting with such generalizations (i.e. electrical vs. mechanical control) makes for very bad design decisions. Discounting a whole set of solutions or approaches because another type is assumed to be better is fundamentally flawed thinking.

[m1506m]

Just start with the thinking, that if your electrical is half a##, then you will have to fix it at some point. Be demanding of the electrical team, and insist on perfection.

[E Dawg]

Programming is obviously the best! But honestly, electrical and mechanical are too co-dependent for one to trump the other.

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Electronics help mechanical stuff to move, but without mechanical stuff, electrical stuff just blinks.

It can also overheat, smoke, and burst into flames.

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by MysterE

While the article is interesting in general, one quote stood out to me: " The push-button ignition isn't perfect, but we know electrical trumps mechanical more often than not."

This peaked my curiosity. As robot builders, engineers, designers, etc, do you agree or disagree with the authors statement? Why or why not?

As written, the statement has no meaning, at least to an engineer. From the context, it seems that the author is saying that a pushbutton switch is a better way to start a car than a rotary key switch. Neither of these choices is inherently more or less mechanical or electrical than the other. Both are a method of closing mechanical contacts which allow electricity to flow through the switch.

In general, robots are interconnected, complex systems which rely on Software, Electrical, and Mechanical disciplines. None of these is any more or less important than any of the others. They ALL have to work in order for the robot to function properly. The best robot engineers, though they often specialize in one discipline, are familiar with and can troubleshoot problems with each of these disciplines.

That said, for nearly every electrical problem I've come across (not all), in FRC robots, cars, power tools, household appliances, automated machinery, etc., can be traced back to a mechanical root cause. For example, people on the mechanical subteam love to blame wiring and connector issues on the electricals, and take a "not my job" attitude. But wires and connectors are just the mechanical devices whose job it is to get the electricity from one place to another. Similarly, I've seen electricals say they are just responsible from the wiring diagram, and think that physical implementation of the design is someone else's problem. Neither of these exclusionary attitudes is correct. It is everyone's job to be sure that the end result not only functions properly, but is reliable and serviceable.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by E Dawg

Programming is obviously the best!

Pssssh. Who needs programming?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Pssssh. Who needs programming?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4

This is awesome! I'm going to make all my mechanical kids watch this next year.

[qzrrbz]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Pssssh. Who needs programming?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4

Fascinating stuff. Well found, sir!

[jijiglobe]

Mechanical solutions can come in 1 of 2 categories:
1)actuated: These are basically the same as electrical solutions but a human moves the part instead of an electrical thing that adds an additional layer of complexity.
2)passive: Passive is always better.

the difference is wether code does the logic or a human does. Users tend to find 'electrical' solutions which are really electro-mechanical to be more appealing but a pure mechanical solution has one less part that can fail.

This isn't true in all situation and I do have an engineering bias but yeah...