If refusing to join the abuse GTRE folks ilk == overconfidence then so be it. I'am very happy to be in this state you can keep mine as well as dhiraj's hat.manum wrote:I am seeing two extremes of "over confidence" and "innocence" in Sagar G and Dhiraj respectively...Though they both need to exchange their hats...
While I am going OT...but could not resist...
Gentlemen,pentaiah wrote:Boss Crucible experiment is for scientists, making it in industrial scale is the job of technologists.
All our titans of technologists come from IITs who promptly go to selling PG, or Lever brothers soaps or Goldman sacks (sacks of Gold) exotics swaps and derivatives ( developing models using fourier transforms complex variables etc learned in 4 years in IIT).
This growing crystals in testube or invitro is no good.
Strictly speaking we have everything except to work in public sector with the exception few gems who dont care about pay and do it for the love of what they do and learn.
NFC has zironium alloy plant to shape alloys
Midhani has French collabration and Russian collabration for advanced alloys
DMRL has some of the most exotic machines ( this was in 1980s, now even better)
we need some leadership and people who can do things as technologists, instead of waiting for complete solution for the integral like ML Khanna books (with enough printing mistakes to menatlly wreck you)
I had long back suggested failed Kaveri will make an excellent UAV engine
NRao, we have been through this before. Even if you got the blade sample and an entire engine, you cannot reverse engineer. In addition to the material , the production process R&D itself is a big thing.NRao wrote:titash,
Thanks for the 2 cents.
Q for you: Based on what you know (and perhaps what you can read in this thread), can India build an engine within a reasonable time frame, if funds were not the issue?
I am not talking of new research. I am talking of looking at a (stolen?) SCB and mimicking it (to the last atom?) and replicating similar core technologies for an air craft "engine" (one that will fulfill all requirements for an engine for the LCA/AMCA). You get the picture I hope.
And in fact any time any airline buys any airliner they are getting 2+1 or 4+1 engines that the buyer nation is welcome to take apart and subject to spectroscope, cinemascope, proctoscope and kaleidoscope. But it ain't gonna show exactly how it was made. What temp, what pressure and what starting materials. And the human workmanship and finishing that went into it. That is knowhow. Nobody sell this.vina wrote: Even if you got the blade sample and an entire engine, you cannot reverse engineer. In addition to the material , the production process R&D itself is a big thing.
For eg, you could put the material in a mass spectroscope or something and find out it's composition. But can you make the material consistently on a large scale? Okay, even if you make the material, can you cast it in the required shape and dimension etc and fabricate it? It is very difficult to do both. And then comes the final step of copying the design and cloning everything as is.
If this was so easy, why the Clone Meisters,the Tarrel than mountain brothers would have cloned the Al-31F and the CFM-56 and every engine they have in their possession and would be selling them for peanuts around the world and putting them on every plane they have!
+100. With kaveri almost there the baseline now is TET and manufacturing process.shiv wrote:Dhiraj this has been discussed for so long that I have made many posts on the issue of aero engines - maybe I should collect them up and make one big post on the FAQ thread.
Sirjee, I am no expert on aero engines, but I have been through the process of Meta related product development. I am looking at the problem through a process development engineer's lensNRao wrote:titash,
Thanks for the 2 cents.
Q for you: Based on what you know (and perhaps what you can read in this thread), can India build an engine within a reasonable time frame, if funds were not the issue?
I am not talking of new research. I am talking of looking at a (stolen?) SCB and mimicking it (to the last atom?) and replicating similar core technologies for an air craft "engine" (one that will fulfill all requirements for an engine for the LCA/AMCA). You get the picture I hope.
15 years ago). However, the leapfrog / breakthrough creating Einsteins are missing
That is true sir. I can imagine Chemists/Meta guys coming up with compositions for CMP slurries as well as LAM/AMAT etch processes. A lot of the ab-initio process development is done in conjunction with the OEMpandyan wrote: very interesting post titash. I have met several meta guys in semiconductor...but even they are not too happy because sometimes fundamental materials research happen at the companies that supply materials to the bigger companies. the meta guys in large companies end up overseeing the work of smaller companies. also, have met several aero guys working on semicon heat transfers etc.
Sirjee, I have been through 7 managers in my career and many of them were the "make it happen; don't care how you do it" variety. This, I assume, is what you call push management. The reality is - it doesn't work very well even in a mature industry, let alone fundamental research. Our talent pool is shallow to begin with, and is underpaid compared to industry. Demotivating your employees is the last thing you needSaiK wrote:okay, the push can come from the government alone sounds nice on a contextual scale where you measure everything based on some economic scale where it measures based on the inputs from private is absent, etc.. but a question: what if the gov says, that they have given a chance for you to estimate, build, and re-estimate and build, say 3 times or more and finally conclude that the push was not given, because we did not achieve, would that be right?
how do you determine to say the gov did not push? what if GTRE did not estimate well, manage things well?.. ask for results, etc. There are various ways to save the project, and look at from the establishment point of view, rather technical resource brain availability etc. The same engineers IITians are employed by other DRDO labs (IGMDP) who have done tremendous job for the same pay scale, like a GTRE folk would have got. I don't think this can be written off like saying push has to come only from gov.
The push has to come from people, org, product development folks, engineers, managers, users, customers and even you and me & DDM. It is a total push management.
sagar g, this note is FYI.managers in my career and many of them were the "make it happen; don't care how you do it" variety.
Yawn....manum wrote:See Sagar...
If you think its only you who can write...and get away, more Power to you...
Same goes for the group indulging inmanum wrote:I have seen enough repetitive posts of this nature of defending GTRE and other organization...
each and every time there is some news about a setback.Sermons delivered million times before nothing new about this as well, this behaviour leads to thread derailment. And before delivering sermons people should do a little bit of homework instead of behaving as if they are the god gift's and the one's working are idiots.manum wrote:But it does not mean they are not at fault...nor it means anyone who is asking obvious thingy, such as private sector involvement is a stupid idea...
Not interested in taking lectures from a 2 yr old, maybe you are.manum wrote:Even if it is coming from a child 2 years old.
That doesn't happen till themanum wrote:We are far removed from the processes of the organizations concerned...so if we are speculating and discussing...Nothing is removed from possibility...
are hammered down to silence.It will be better if people start looking at both sides of the coin before passing judgements.manum wrote:It'll be easier if you tinker your mould of obvious assumptions...
Why would Russia (or any other country possessing the tech) create a business competitor ??? Think.....nits wrote:Just wondering did India ever thought of having a joint Engine development with Russia or taking Russian help for Kaveri...
The answer to this has been best captured by shiv in another thread where something similar was asked, X posting....NRao wrote:titash,
Thanks for the 2 cents.
Q for you: Based on what you know (and perhaps what you can read in this thread), can India build an engine within a reasonable time frame, if funds were not the issue?
I am not talking of new research. I am talking of looking at a (stolen?) SCB and mimicking it (to the last atom?) and replicating similar core technologies for an air craft "engine" (one that will fulfill all requirements for an engine for the LCA/AMCA). You get the picture I hope.
and the next post goes further explaining what is required to be done....shiv wrote:It's like looking at a roti and then figuring out which season the wheat was grown, how long the atta was rested after mixing, how much water was used in the mix, how long the mixing was done, the temperature of the tava at the time of making and the time taken. None of these can actually be figured out by examining the roti in minute detail.Kailash wrote:A question. We have the original bofors and would definitely have disabled/cannibalized ones - is it not possible to study the % composition and microscopic structure and try to deduce the manufacturing process?
So a lot of roti's are going to be made till we find the one which suits our taste palette.Marut wrote:As doc lays it out, the only way is to make lots of rotis with different parameters and then record the outcomes to zero in on the combination that gives you the best roti. Translate that to guns and you will need deep pockets to go down this route. But the results will definitely be worth it. Maybe Bharat Forge or others are doing it already...
Point taken but I believe with Kaveri it is now a question of tech gap than management, if your scientists/engineers aren't able to achieve critical tech breakthroughs then I don't see how management can fix that. Yeah you can bring in new people but by doing so we are back to square one and then can only hope that they will deliver in due time.SaiK wrote:titash, that is exactly the reason I am saying reorg.. The managementsagar g, this note is FYI.managers in my career and many of them were the "make it happen; don't care how you do it" variety.
Note: ishikawa [japanese model/product quality guru], said: if managers don't do the right work for quality, it does not happen.
Katare sirjee - thank you for your inputs; you make some very valid points - specially on the "good base" aspect. However, I disagree with your statement that domain expertise isn't a big dealKatare wrote:Good post titash and agree with all of you say but I would add that in real life things work a bit different.
For instance did Kalam, Saraswat, Avinash Chander et. al were trained as rocket engineers, probably not.
Most software engineers working today, were not trained in computer science but they don't fare any worse than the ones that were trained in computer science.
There are only a dozen or so eng/science degrees available but there are hundreds of very specialized professions that need domain expertise. Most people I know were not exactly trained in school for what they are working on in real time.
The way I have always explained it is that Physics, Chemistry and Math remains the same weather you work as ceramics eng/sci, mechanical eng, aerospace, automobile, rocket science or chemical engineering. So people with good base can seamlessly transition to different fields and build competency over time. I have at least worked in 4 different hard core research/engineering fields over last 15 years. This actually helps you broaden your understanding of problems and allows you to see things from many different angles.
This is going OT but I don't think the domain expertise is such a big issue, it's the lack of opportunity to work on higher end of technology in these fields that forces people to go look for other fields. 40 years back civil engineering used to be top choice, today its at the bottom. In those days computer science was considered a little better than a typist for IAS. So the preference changes to meet the market realities which is a good thing IMO.
OT;Katare wrote:
There are only a dozen or so eng/science degrees available but there are hundreds of very specialized professions that need domain expertise. Most people I know were not exactly trained in school for what they are working on in real time.
The way I have always explained it is that Physics, Chemistry and Math remains the same weather you work as ceramics eng/sci, mechanical eng, aerospace, automobile, rocket science or chemical engineering. So people with good base can seamlessly transition to different fields and build competency over time. I have at least worked in 4 different hard core research/engineering fields over last 15 years. This actually helps you broaden your understanding of problems and allows you to see things from many different angles.
ZZZZZSagar G wrote:Yawn....
ZZZZZZZZZZZZSagar G wrote:Same goes for the group indulging in each and every time there is some news about a setback.
ohh.... main to dar hi gaya tha , yeh soch kar that it was for meSagar G wrote:Not interested in taking lectures from a 2 yr old, maybe you are.That doesn't happen till the are hammered down to silence.
“We are abandoning the plan for co-development with Snecma. We still need an overseas partner. But it will not be Snecma on a single-vendor basis. We will select our partner through competitive bidding,” says Dr CP Ramnarayanan, director, GTRE.
“To develop a more powerful Kaveri engine quickly and to become self-reliant in engine design, we need a foreign partner which can bring in core technologies. Otherwise the next cycle of engine development could take another 15-20 years,” admits Ramnarayan, frankly.
“We were planning to re-engine first 40 Tejas fighters with the Kaveri. But now they will continue to fly with the F-404 engine,” says the GTRE director
[\quote]
From the above quote it is just that no one is
1. Change the current approach even if it is good , just to make things better.
2. Or . De-link GTRE engine development project with any fighter development program, at least it will not create unnecessary expectation which is not good for either side.
Found a good link for Saturn engine development. Mostly in Russian though it has subtitles where around 5:40 it also talks about the work starting in parallel on the 6th gen engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVJny6UL6V8
mahadevbhu wrote:talk as much as it should
Mahadev, Send me an e-mail r katare 23 at h0t mai1 d0t c0m, we can talk offlinemahadevbhu wrote:OT;Katare wrote:
There are only a dozen or so eng/science degrees available but there are hundreds of very specialized professions that need domain expertise. Most people I know were not exactly trained in school for what they are working on in real time.
The way I have always explained it is that Physics, Chemistry and Math remains the same weather you work as ceramics eng/sci, mechanical eng, aerospace, automobile, rocket science or chemical engineering. So people with good base can seamlessly transition to different fields and build competency over time. I have at least worked in 4 different hard core research/engineering fields over last 15 years. This actually helps you broaden your understanding of problems and allows you to see things from many different angles.
Id like to get feedback from you on managing a career. How do I post my question to you ? email/ or some other sub forum here?
13 years just to arrive at the right propellant that can meet all mission and operating conditions.....and this for a missile.The design of such a liner system has almost taken 13 years for
perfection after five iterations. Since the booster propellant had to be a free standing grain, its mechanical
properties had to be higher to suite dynamic loads of transportation conditions. To achieve required
thrust-time profile to meet mission requirements under wide operating temperature conditions of -20 Deg
to + 55 deg, the burn rates have to be optimized by tailoring the ingredients and composition. Process had
to be frozen for realizing of booster propellant grains with finalized specification and consistency had to
be recorded and performance had to be evaluated through static testing at sub scale level and full scale
motor level. This activity calls for design of moulds, handling tools, extraction tools, establishing number
of facilities like mixers, blenders, sieves, storage facilities, ovens etc. The curing cycle had to be
optimized to achieve the required mechanical properties and performance parameters. Number of
debates / meetings had to be held at various stages and mid course alternate actions to be arrived at in
iterations and considerable amount of time. Initially composite double based propellant was developed
and used for few development flight tests. However due micro crack development with respect to storage
time, booster grain with composite propellant had to be developed, performance was evaluated in various
ground / flight tests which finally met all mission requirements.
Well, it is working, but still not "fine" . The design wet and dry thrust is not achieved yet. Per what folks posted here, there was screech in the afterburner (not a very difficult to fix problem, even the F-35 engine had screech which got fixed) and vibration and other issues that will get fixed and the engine flown.shiv wrote:No Philip. A per what I hear from your namesake AM Rajkumar, the Kaveri is working fine. There is a working engine there. The basic tech is sorted out. It needs some refinement and improvement. If I search I find many examples of engines developed in the 60s that now serve as the basis for modern fighter and civilian engines.
Folks here posted (was it KaranM?) posted on Kaver MK2 at 100+ KN. Wonder what you heard about it. I think with the current over sized core, a scaled up low pressure spool will see us get there , once the core is fixed properly and the high temp materials from DMRL come through.The important thing is not to give up on the Kaveri but to start another engine program in parallel even as Kaveri is taken forward. Done properly there is every possibility of having a reliable family of engines based on Kaveri that could appear by 2020-2025.
Folks heard about SCB first here much before AI 2013. The issue was poorly handled by the media who doesn't have the appetite to squeeze through to understand the happenings behind the scene. Now, Kaveri team moved further to next level. Hear this for the first time before any media or blog if suppose they could come with a story.vina wrote:Folks here posted (was it KaranM?) posted on Kaver MK2 at 100+ KN. Wonder what you heard about it. I think with the current over sized core, a scaled up low pressure spool will see us get there , once the core is fixed properly and the high temp materials from DMRL come through.The important thing is not to give up on the Kaveri but to start another engine program in parallel even as Kaveri is taken forward. Done properly there is every possibility of having a reliable family of engines based on Kaveri that could appear by 2020-2025.