You guys are wasting your time. snoc's knowledge of props couldn't fill a bottle cap. He has ZERO clue
Printable View
You guys are wasting your time. snoc's knowledge of props couldn't fill a bottle cap. He has ZERO clue
Speaking of having zero clue, please step away from the bottle Bob(oh yeah, you say you don't drunk post, please get an education then). What does knowledge of props have to do with a discussion of reverse engineering a product? Just like when people were splashing hulls, eventually the courts ruled you can't do that. Copying someone else's work is not legal, ethical, nor right.Quote:
Originally Posted by gn7
How many times have you cried like a baby that lost your binky over Chinese reverse engineered parts. Its the same thing. The only difference I see here is that people like the person that is making the copies of props and they want copies for themselves of good props that work. So apparently that makes reverse engineering a part OK.
And no it isn't like someone manufacturing crankshafts of their own design and then selling them. Unless GM has a patent on the crankshaft, which would mean someone owes them a royalty, designing a similar part that fits in their block isn't the same as copying their part. Sonny doesn't copy the GM crank exactly and then CNC it. They design their own based on the dimensions they have to work with, and you can bet they have their own engineers. Now the Chinese will reverse engineer a Sonny crank and then pump them out on a CNC, but just like the props, that's ok, right? What would happen if the Chinese took a copy of a Grose prop and started making copies available for $1800. Or if they had you send them the cad file made by a shop here in the states or your Grose prop and they pumped you out exact copies for $600 each? GN7 already said SS props are expected to wear out, so if they don't last quite as long but you could get 4 props for less than the cost of one and get more total time out of the 4, why not? That is what we're discussing.
It's not about the manufacturing process or the quality of the product being produced, it's about copying someone else's work without their express permission. And we're not talking about making a similar part, we're talking about making an exact copy of someone else's work.
Ask any engineer who's had his design hijacked by someone and see how they feel about the subject.
I cannot believe you are so fucking stupid as to think you can reverse engineer a fucking prop. How fucking dumb are you really. IF I have my prop tuned and worked, and then copied by Grose, is it the property of the guy that made it, or the guys that tuned it, or is I my property because I told the guy that tuned it what I wanted done. Are you that fucking insane. And the fucking military referred to you as a INTEL SPECIALIST. GOD HELP OUR ASSES.
You cannot reverse engineer a fucking crankshaft DUMBASS! Is it a different fucking crankshaft once I balance to my rods and pistons. Please tell you aren't really that fucking stupid and served in a military and you're just fucking with me
Oh, And will I ask you as nicely as I can to refrain for drinking comments
YOU MISERABLE
Bob I'm going to ask you nicely once.
its still thereQuote:
Originally Posted by WESTERNAERO
You do realize that reverse engineering is the term that refers to 3-D scanning of a part (a loose catch all term that they use for the process of 3-D scanning objects). A 3-D scan is one of the steps needed for making an exact CNC duplicate of a part. Let me clarify that, an exact physical duplicate in design, not material or build process as scanning someone else's work eliminates the developement, design, and testing processes all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by gn7
And if that is as nice as possible, maybe you should go back to the meetings and figure out what steps you're missing. Sent with all my care and concern, from one Asshole to another.
Making two perfectly matched ears is different than copying a prop exactly. If the ears are different, which one do they copy?Quote:
Originally Posted by WESTERNAERO
If they copy one of Harold's props exactly because it is the hot ticket in a specific application, that is wrong. If they look at the prop and make a new design of their own using digital accuracy based on what they think Harold was trying to do, that is grey, but not blatantly wrong even if they measure one of his prop ears and duplicate the concept exactly on both ears. At least they are doing design and development work at their own expense. They might find that the design doesn't work as efficiently with both ears the exact same as either of the ones on the original prop.
But if it turns out that Harold's prop is the perfect design, shouldn't he benefit from his work if everyone wants an exact copy of his work and design?
Harold Kindsvater is a leading prop maker for v-drives. He also does aircraft propellers, so I've been told and is definitely not just copying other's work. Can he make two ears that are identical? I don't know. But, he can definitely make props that work and work well.Quote:
Originally Posted by WESTERNAERO
So we agree that copying is wrong when it comes to China, but disagree on it being wrong for Grose to copy a prop. You do realize that some consider a part being more affordable an improvement even if it isn't as reliable over the long haul?
The best prop we ever ran on our hydroplane was an accident. The chain wasn't put on correctly and the prop shaft backed out and the prop hit the rudder. Our Carry 12 X 20 1/2 became an 11 1/2 X 18 3/4 or something like that, with the cupping reworked and the whole prop re-balanced. It made our 280 come alive and everyone that asked got to try it. It had the same effect on numerous boats. Dad wouldn't sell the boat and nobody could copy the prop exactly back then. Many racers had prop builders build them props that were as close as possible, which is good to go in my book. Some worked better than others and the man that did the work on our prop, made several of the new props (his payment for coming up with something that worked, based on his years of experience and hard work).
No two boats are identical, so why do you need an identical prop to someone else's? Why should someone that works to perfect their trade skills be denied an opportunity to profit when they finally get one just right? And why should someone else profit because they have the ability to copy the craftsman's work without paying the craftsman his fair share? These are my chief complaints about copying props. It's not about someone wanting a backup, but more about compensating the person that figured it out, when it does work. Just like the China copies take income away from the rightful designers and manufacturers, so does copying props. IMHO
I like the idea of CNC props and the precision that brings to the game. I am just not a fan of copying. But we've pretty much beat that horse to death.
So let's get back to raising GN7's blood pressure. He must be counting to 100 to cool off before reposting, so this could take a while. :pound:
Grose doesnt copy props to sell to the masses if you have a prop stock or worked you can digitize it and keep it on file until you need one if you hand work a prop there is no way to duplicate it exact by hand but a digitized CNC is damn close as GN 7 stated no 2 standard props are the same , no standard prop manufactuer is going to duplicate anything .Grose has their own design stuff that seems to work well.