reverse engineering Baldwins Wurlitzers

[Roger Jolly]

At 09:58 PM 19/08/98 -0700, you wrote:
Hi Del, 
        In the case of the C173 the scale lay out is the same, however in
the case of the C, now very much upgraded to the Chickering 507 some of the
tension was dropped, for structural reasons. At university we were always
lectured that taking a previous design, and adapting backwards was refered
to as reverse engineering, only fair since in some cases some designer
developed a product, and should get credit, therefore we cannot lay claim
to originality. An ethics issue in the UK, big time.
  Baldwin in the past has more than pulled it's weight in the R & D
department, and now that many of the finacial restrictions are past, they
are starting to move forward again.
  Copying or cloning, is precisely that, and is not really engineering as I
would define it.
  Some examples that relate to your self, 243HP and the B scalings feel
proud you did a good job, and it was original, but the C would be a
different story.
  I hope I'm not causing you any embarassment, as that is not the intent.
Have a great day Roger 





>I'm not sure I'd call that "reverse engineering."  What you're describing is
>adapting an in-house design for other applications to spread the cost of
R&D out a
>bit.
>
>Reverse engineering would be if Ford bought one of these engines and took it
>apart, measured it, made drawings and built a "clone" with little or no
in-house
>design and development of their own.
>
>I have no problem with adapting an in-house design -- that's just good
business.
>I do have a problem with reverse engineering.  There has been way too much
of it
>in this industry and not nearly enough original thought.
>
>
>
Roger Jolly
Baldwin Yamaha Piano Centre
Saskatoon and Regina
Saskatchewan, Canada.
306-665-0213
Fax 652-0505