DEVELOP3D - Technology for the product lifecycle

This is true Sean,

Cars and other products do cause harm. The new wind farms going around have known to kill 1000's of birds. However, I doubt engineers at Honda will sit around a table and optimize the Civic front bumper to most efficiently kill a pedestrian. In fact, we all know that most of these companies continuously work to reduce the negative impacts of their products. I think the ultimate end-use of the product is what is on the table here.

It would do good for the image of Develop3D if it were to cover industries that have a positive outlook on humanity and a corresponding product utility.

just my 0.02

Scott… "federal" law? I'm british mate. LOL.. and besides. I do love a bit of orange. not too sure about the rest though..

I wouldn't concern yourself with the morality of discussing controversial industries. A product is a product, it's the person using it that makes it controversial. If you continue to keep your magazine on topic with how a product is designed and manufactured, then there really is no controversy. If I were you, I'd actually be more concerned with the legal aspect of sharing design/development information to across national borders. There is an export control on some facets of that information and I'd hate to see you go to "federal pound me in the arse prison" because you violate ITARS (or one of your readers who may have submitted the story).

Richard – thanks. I'm really curious to see if there's a geographic bias towards the yes vote.

Jeff – yes. that's my new mission statement "how not to be boring"

Kevin – yes. I know. it's bad… dude… or something

Al, I think it depends on the story. The big issue you will have with military hardware is that a lot of the best stuff is top secret, and to be honest reading another feature on a gun development where they used software a and B and did some prototypes is not really that interesting. I think you need to treat each feature on its own merits. If a military story comes up that has genuine widespread interest then feature it.

And Al, you are spending too much time in the states….there is no defence for USA spelling.

The avoidance of all controversy is boring. D3D is one of my favorite mags because it isn't boring. I suggest you keep looking for ways to not be boring.

Al,
Every engineering development has something to contribute to the wider industry no matter within which industry it was developed. Whilst I have a personal abhorrence to violence we often see, I have no difficulty in being interested in the engineering that is applied to ‘weapons’, and do not see that reporting as controversial.
You would cross a boundary, with me, if the reporting started to push/back a ‘political/ideological’ view point.
As far as ‘controversy’ is concerned: the CAD press have always avoided, in depth discussions, of the controversial aspects of ‘licencing’. So something to think about; whilst we consider the rights and wrongs about whether to look at the engineering of weapons might we also cast a thought in the direction of how software companies are slowing steering us all in a direction that will prove to be far more damaging than many of the ‘weapons’ you may, or may not, talk about.

You should, as long and you keep the balance covering also stuff to make love instead of war: A lot more complicated surfacing and eye candy stuff on sex toys than on silly weapons anyways.

And since you open the can of worms why don't you also cover the religious artifacts industry too. I'd love to see how people make those plastic Jesus and angel's statues.

I am interested in coverage of design and product development techniques. I am indifferent to what the product actually is.

If you do artificially constrain the topics you cover, please prominently note this. I feel that you would be doing something wrong in presenting a constrained view of a topic without informing your readers. I think there is a big difference in being a website with News About X and a website with News About X (except in the following areas of our moral choice).

I'd love to see defense-industry products covered. I think the greater product design community can learn volumes from discussions of weapons and defense industry products and design processes. Fundamentally we are all designing within a set of defined constraints and requirements. The little I know about weapons constraints and requirements makes me very interested to know more.

Not that I represent the greater local community, but I happen to live in a quite liberal area of California. If that matters…

I say publish and be damned!

At the end of the day if you present the feature in a n open and transparent way and it has a genuine engineering / design aspect then that should be discussed and reviewed.

Personally I would love to find out exactly how some of the Airfix kits are designed, prototyped then manufactured. A lot of intricate parts there…..

PS I love the mag!

Cheers
AndyR

Not all weaponry is used to kill but to disarm or put out a non lethal method of convincing someone not to do something that could harm others or the person doing something. Cars kill more people in the USA alone than most of the wars we have had to fight over the last few decades. I would cover it and be glad that it is a service to those that risk their lives to defend yours and mine.

All good points here chaps, I think it's pretty clear that there's a will to learn about these things – I guess we just have to treat each case sensitively and see what we think of each story and make a call.

I suspect much of it comes down to personal preference and availability of information. Firstly, the weapons or defence guys are very secretive about what they do – so details will be scant – and therefore, would we be better of covering something we can get more details on, and add more meat to the bones of a stories to flesh it out into something interesting? Personally speaking, I'd rather run a story on a toy manufacturer, someone developing an interesting product that helps people (we're got a big feature coming up on wheelchair design).

Now, for another thing that's cropped up here:

As for the people worrying about us pushing political or moral agendas or letting our personal point of views influence what's in the magazine. I do have to say Yes. WE do. Absolutely. 100%.

I'm not entirely sure where this idea comes from that journalism is a non-partisan thing, but if you've got a view on something, something you feel strongly about, then that'll always influence what you do. And that's a good thing.

After all, this magazine and web-site belongs to a group of people and that group of people have views and opinions and we're more than comfortable with discussing or not discussing subject of our choice. A great number of people read it and we hope that they like it – which many of them do. But if people don't agree, they can engage with any of us or ultimately, not read it anymore. That's a free choice.

We put ourselves into the heart of this magazine and we'll do what feels right and stand by that decision – I'm not going to apologize for that whatsoever.

Now. To sum up..

The readers have spoken – that's what they want. My task is now to find out Sex Toys, Airfix model kits and the bobble head Jesus statues are manufactured –

Cheers..

Al

PS: A quick note for R Paul Waddington. Really? Software licensing is more damaging that landmines? so much wrong with that.

PPS: I've never been too sure what the software licensing thing is all about. You select a tool, you buy it, you use. If you don't like the license that's part of that package, then don't buy it. If the license changes, then stop using the system and buy something else. Simple as.. but that's just my personal point of view.

HI,

On another note, regarding secrecy on arms manufacturing. I'm a member of the IMECHE and in their bi-weekly magazine there is almost always a feature on some defence related topic, whether it be related to the fluid flow dynamics or the testing of some aspect of the design it gets covered, perhaps not in huge detail but enough to convey what they are doing is cutting edge (usually).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the info can be gotten, hopefully you guys will get access to some of these type of stories.

Cheers
AndyR

PS really looking forward to reading the magazine on how airfix models are designed. Dragon models have something called slide moulding no idea what or how it works but the results are impressive.

I think there's a big difference between products used for defense or products used for offense.

I'm not interested in seeing products related to guns, tanks, etc; not everybody is as keen on guns as people from the US are.

But talk about something like armor or any other defensive technology and you've got me interested.

lotta great comments. not much to add except, publish away dude. defense, protection, offense… they all have an interesting story behind them… try answer the question about 'whether to design/engineer a multi-million dollar aircraft interior for people with known ties to terrorists.' – talk about a moral quandry.

I don't think Develop3D needs to cover the defense industry. There are many other wholesome industries that Develop3D can take part in; take for example the world's exploding Green Energy Industry. For example, within 5 years, Germany's Green Industry took over its Auto Industry as number one. Ontario, Canada has just implemented a Green Energy act that will see massive amount of innovation and economic development. Take part in the future of the world and leave the offense, I mean Defense industry for politicians and war lords.

Regards,

It's not just weapons that are morally objectional – most of the companies you cover are directly related to or supply or invest in activities which have a negative impact on the people and planet – cars kill over 3000 people in the UK each year, less than a 100 were killed by guns,

Sean K

D3D Team,
I work in the US defense industry and I would personally love to see you guys cover some of my "stuff". There is some very neat technology out there that is meant for protection such as the ripsaw unmanned vehicle and it's built using all the same techniques you speak of. In my opinion the taser is no more contriversial in the states than pepper spray. If a police officer can "stun" a criminal so that he/she can be brought to justice, isn't that better than death by police or inadvertant maming by shooting to subdue? Popular Science has covered aspects of the defense industry for years but have never touched on the design aspects that you guys cover. Thanks for asking our opinion. I think you will find a great number of your US readers will say yes to your question.
Rich