great explanation. one wonders how many attempts were made at mechanizing the exact manual sequence of passing the whole needle through, rotating, and passing i

great explanation. one wonders how many attempts were made at mechanizing the exact manual sequence of passing the whole needle through, rotating, and passing it back up. because for everyone, that was sewing. it’s understated but worth the greatest emphasis: when trying to improve on a process or mechanize/automate, how it’s currently done may not be your best guide. if anything, it may be the worst. concerning that, gordon glegg had this to say in his book, the design of design[0]: If you are concerned in making the production of some article quicker, better or cheaper, you will naturally study how it is being done at the moment. It may seem paradoxical but the man least likely to help you is the operator in charge of the machine. The more 'down-to-earth' and 'practical' he considers himself the more 'unpractical' and 'up-in-the-air' he is likely to be from your point of view. He is too near the machine to know why it works. He only knows how it works. He will have learnt what handwheels to turn or what controls to adjust to keep the line running efficiently, and will be able to use that knowledge most skilfully and responsibly. [0]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/aeronautical-journal/article/abs/design-of-design-g-l-glegg-cambridge-university-press-1969-93-pp-illustrated-30s/52A5E5488C0A46B0FEE913F9AA2F3D06 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/aeronautical-journal...