How do you research and benchmark mechanics design ideas?

A crucial step is to frame the goal in terms of how the system will deliver value, whether it's for the end user, the customer, or the business. While something may serve a technical purpose, have detailed requirements and use cases, it's essential to capture the value proposition right from the outset. This insight serves as a compass, informing decisions and establishing the right priorities as you advance through the design process. It ensures that when you inevitably encounter challenges or conflicting requirements, your solution is justifiable and well-aligned to your original priorities. It also provides you with a means to reevaluate your current design strategy and start again rather than persisting with a flawed concept.

Companies usually hire me when they have problems with the orthodox and classic known ways that do not work. My first step is detective work using my engineering and science knowledge to locate the core. This "core" is the process or uses which changing it trigger the whole improvement. The last was to take a new process out of a design office commanded by tech dinosaurs, and my present project is to use the last frontier of fuel-air use to improve (maybe to 60% thermal efficiency) the Internal Combustion Engine and at the same time doing it cleanest possible. Ten years ago I found the kernel that could trigger this change and was discarded by the industry. Getting this tilting point is my goal because gives where the project has to focus.

An effective technique for evaluating potential solutions to a problem, and one which can be used for ring fencing IP, is the S-Field Analysis methodology from TRIZ (a Russian acronym for the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving). The process involves creating a top level system map that connects subsystems and components by their relative interactions. This enables the abstraction of different solutions for comparison in a visual manner. Evaluating these diagrams and removing redundant actions or components, and implementing strategies to mitigate detrimental interactions will allow one to progress towards a more ideal system. The diagrams can be informed by research from literature, patents or internal concept brainstorms.

Primeiramente busco alternativas e exemplos que já existem, ou que foram testados, encurto o caminho das ideias. Depois analiso a viabilidade do projeto, tendo em mente seu custo de fabrica??o, facilidade na montagem e disponibilidade de pe?as standard. Com isto em mente, ganho agilidade e n?o deixo um elefante branco como resultado do projeto.

In some instances, it may be necessary to build additional robustness in the design, over and above what is provided in the standards. For example, specific workplaces may have higher than anticipated corrosive environments.

This step to me is usually the most important as it helps you realize design flaws or simply human errors that can be overlooked. Getting your work reviewed by peers or a general user target group can help you avoid having a complex design that could have been further simplified and allows you to deeper refine you work to get the best product. You as the designer become more focused on the end product which blocks you from seeing alternative possibilities which may suit the system better.

I think this step is immensely important and the sooner it's engaged, the better. User feedback will help with setting the most adequate scope for better outcomes and could sprawl ideas. Seeking feedback later in the process could render the previous work as a waste of resources. I believe this step is better to happen twice. First at the start for scope and generating ideas, and also by this point for the validation.

After I get initial feedback from people involved in the backend (engineers, manufacturing, contractors/tradesmen, etc) and target users, I follow up with specific question: "What do you want to get that you don't have now (with the proposed design)?" That's been instrumental in getting high-value feedback.