**4. Summary and conclusion**

*New Innovations in Engineering Education and Naval Engineering*

**82**

**Overall dimensions (mm)**

**Height**

**1478** Type Worm geared

Power (W)

4000

Temperatures (°C)

**Table 3.**

*Key specifications of components for a 200 L herbal oil extractor for a home cottage factory.*

Heater max.

90

70

Vessel max

Materials

Heater

SS316

Thermon

UHRBC14K00350N1

Manufacturer

Code

Heater

SEF

SF37DRK7154

180 Pump

70 Head (m)

2.75 Vessel SS316

Thermalite Glass wool

MS

Insulation

Frame

260

2

Power (W)

Max flow (L/s)

1450

Manufacturer

Code

Power (W)

Motor Specs

**1660**

**930**

**Length**

**Width**

**Power at 240 V AC (W)**

**Heater**

**4000** Torque (Nm)

Speed (rpm)

Output speed

(rpm)

15

**180**

**260**

**4400**

**Motor**

**Pump**

**Total**

In this chapter, we have described and illustrated MED from both a classroom perspective and from an industrial one. In undergraduate MED, emphasis is on ability to analyse existing systems. The student is taught MED on a machine element by element basis—and most contact hours are spent that way. There is little room and time to integrate the elements in one worked example or problem. Moreover, those elements from other areas of mechanical engineering, such as in Thermo-Fluids, are normally assumed to be well covered in those subjects. They are rarely given consideration in normal MED class rooms. This is not to mention the even more critical considerations of non-science related issues which, in the first place, are often, the source of problems to be solved by engineering. It has been argued in this chapter that this treatment acclimatises the student to always be expectant of readymade systems to analyse. Even then, understanding how the systems came into being, as answers to specific human needs, can be problematic. This is a disservice to the student and to industry, because the main purpose of MED is supposed to be synthesis of mechanical systems, speaking to the needs of society.

Industry on the other hand, has no choice but to face the design challenge from a problem solution perspective. All areas of knowledge, be they from science, art, or even heuristic and intuition, are brought to bear on the problem. Market, economic, political, legal, social, aesthetic and ordinary engineering constraints are imposed on an inexistent system that is supposed to be created and made. Two largely complementary approaches of doing so were reviewed: the creative, and the rational. It was seen that the rational approach formalises the design process and tends to take care of more constraints a design may be encountering. It is thus advisable, even of creative designers to embrace it. In engineering classrooms, it is without a doubt, the recommended approach.

Two design examples were described in a university setting environment. One was primarily of creative nature, leading to an invention over a long period of time. However, whether consciously or otherwise, it was still tempered with some formality in form of a structured approach between different design stages. The main advantage of this approach seemed to be the generation of other offshoot products arising from apparent failures within the creative process. In essence, therefore, creativity can lead to many other originally unintended, but useful products. The second example was focused on the rational approach—as taught to the author's students. A physically handicapped student was able to demonstrate that he had learned the methodology by designing a product quite related to what he had learnt—and participated in building in class, while still physically fit. Importantly, he demonstrated good understanding of the integrative nature of MED, calling on subject content from diverse areas like Fluid Mechanics, Heat transfer, Electrical Technology, Economics, etc. Moreover, the problem to be solved required him to appreciate compositions of some naturally occurring plants and means of getting useful extracts from them. Such extensive exposure is not normal in MED as commonly taught/learnt.

To conclude the chapter, it could be said that—although the traditional approach of handling MED is helpful in so far as it breaks up the subject matter into smaller, easier to learn, topics, it makes it more difficult for students, and possibly academics, to apply that knowledge to solve real life engineering design problems. This author recommends a mixed approach whereby, early on in the study of MED, the current topic-based system is used but a formalised needs-driven design approach is gradually introduced until it becomes the dominant approach by the time the student is finishing her/his MED subjects. **Table 4** summarises the salient differences in approach.

It is to be understood here, that we are not talking about the final year design project, typical in many engineering schools and faculties. No—it is the timetabled MED we are referring to. The new approach not only works, but it produces tangible results as demonstrated in this chapter. It should therefore, as much as possible, be adopted.


#### **Table 4.**

*Summary of differences between the current and proposed MED teaching approaches.*

## **Acknowledgements**

The work in case No. 1 was funded by Cape Peninsula University of Technology Research Fund, through research account RK23.

### **Conflict of interest**

The author's interest in this, and other related work, is driven by an insatiable desire to make students realise that by their last year of undergraduate study, they can already have an inner ability to start contributing to make their societies live better now, and not wait for tomorrow.

#### **Thanks**

The author thanks his student, Riel Haupt, for his drive and courage even after the almost fatal accident. Special thanks go to Riel's parents for supporting him.

**85**

**Author details**

Kant Kanyarusoke

provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

\*Address all correspondence to: kanyarusokek@cput.ac.za

*Mechanical Engineering Design: Going over the Analysis-Synthesis Mountain to Seed Creativity*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85174*

*Mechanical Engineering Design: Going over the Analysis-Synthesis Mountain to Seed Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85174*
