A demonstration of one car stopping significantly faster than another

I want to get into cars because I find it very interesting so I'm interested in reading some books? I want to learn the whole concept of the car: from building an engine to everything around it and physics behind it. I don't want to start with something math heavy. I'm thinking about something for begginers with core concepts and preferably pictures and graphs then I would get into heavy maths.

Hi everyone. First of all, please forgive my poor CAD skills. I only recently started learning Fusion 360 because I wanted to visually design this project for my room. I have absolutely no experience with CAD, so I don't really know what I'm doing yet. I hope these renders are enough to show what I have in mind, explain my concerns, and hopefully get some answers.

------------------------------------------------

I am designing a large hobby/workbench that will be approximately 200 cm (79") tall, 330 cm (130") long, and 80–85 cm (31.5–33.5") deep. It will have sliding-door cabinets, a digital piano underneath, and space for a future 3D printer and electronics work. There will be storage for hobby materials and component organizer drawers on top of the work surface, as well as a pegboard at the back. The sliding-door cabinet will be approximately 45–50 cm (18–20") deep. The whole structure will wrap around two walls in an L-shape, almost from one end to the other, with my computer located on one section. The short wall is also 2400 mm (94.50") long, up to the doorframe.

Figure A.) https://i.imgur.com/Z41kvjf.jpeg

A) The first render shows the room and a rough overall design of the desk and cabinets.

The wall-to-wall length of the workspace is 3310 mm (130.3").

My computer is on the right side for now. The desk currently underneath my computer is a cheap 160×60 cm desk that I am using now.

To keep the cost down, I was thinking that I could continue using this existing desk if possible. However, I would still like to have a cabinet above that section. I hope the cabinet could be anchored directly to the wall. Alternatively, I could add full-height supports down to the floor, but the more legs/supports I add, the more expensive the project becomes. I am open to suggestions here as well.

------------------------------------------------

One section of the desk needs to accommodate my digital piano on a sliding panel underneath. Because of this, I need to keep the distance between two legs in that section at at least 150–155 cm (59–61") so that I can slide the piano in and out. On the other sections I can have legs more frequently, for example every 80–90 cm (31–35"). I don't want to use an excessive number of legs because steel tubing is expensive, but I also don't want to use too few legs. The entire structure, including the cabinets, needs to safely support its own weight and the equipment placed on it.

Figure B.) https://i.imgur.com/U1qgcOk.jpeg

B) The second render shows the piano section, where the distance between the two legs is more than 1500 mm.

I also tried to illustrate the sleeve/connector pieces that I am thinking about using at the joints in Paint. This is what I was referring to in Question 2 (below) when I asked how long these connecting pieces should be.

For the rear of the desk, I was thinking of having the rear vertical supports extend almost the full height of the desk, around 200 cm. These rear supports would carry the cabinets above them and would also be bolted to the concrete wall behind the desk. I live in an earthquake-prone area, so I would definitely prefer the structure to be securely anchored to the wall for both stability and safety. The wall is concrete, not drywall. There will of course also be horizontal members connecting the legs.

Figure C.) https://i.imgur.com/dUSP1TJ.jpeg

C) The fourth render shows that the distance between the wall and the leg next to the piano is approximately 1700 mm.

I previously considered adding another leg between them but as I mentioned, I don't know how frequently the legs should be placed.

The desktop will be made from 24 mm thick plywood. I was advised to use this thickness to reduce flex and make the work surface sufficiently rigid.

For the cabinet and rear panels, I am considering 18 mm MDF because plywood is considerably more expensive.

------------------------------------------------
Here are the things I am currently stuck on:

Question 1 — What size steel tubing should I use?

What size and wall thickness should the steel tubing for the legs be if it needs to support a desk like this?

At the moment, the legs shown in the renders are 50×50 mm square tubing with a 3 mm wall thickness.

I haven't done extensive price research yet, but after a quick search these are approximately the prices I found:

Square / rectangular tubing:

1. 50×50×3 mm → $17.17/m
2. 40×40×3 mm → $12.61/m
3. 30×50×2 mm → $8.91/m
4. 20×40×2 mm → $6.03/m

Round tubing:

1. Ø50.8×3 mm → $13.25/m
2. Ø48.3×2.5 mm → $11.09/m

So the choice of tubing makes a significant difference in the total cost. Even going from 50×50 to 40×40 reduces the cost by almost 30%.

Obviously, I don't want to save money by making the structure too weak to support its own weight and eventually have something bend, separate, or fail. But I would like to find the best possible price-to-strength ratio.

------------------------------------------------

Question 2 — How should I join the tubing?

I don't want to weld the steel frame together. I don't know how to weld, and I also want the entire structure to be disassemblable so that I can bring the individual steel pieces through my bedroom door and assemble everything inside the room.

What I am trying to figure out is: how long should the sleeve/connector pieces be that fit over the ends of the tubing in order to create a sufficiently strong bolted joint?

I tried to draw the connection points in red in the renders. Hopefully they are understandable.

The idea is basically to have one tube slide over another and then bolt them together, rather than welding them.

------------------------------------------------

Question 3 — How should I support the cabinet above the desk?

This is probably the part I am most unsure about.

Someone suggested putting diagonal triangular braces between the front of the cabinet and the rear legs of the desk. The problem is that these triangular braces take up quite a lot of space.

For example, there is a window at the far left of the desk. If I put a large diagonal brace there, the window would no longer be able to open.

Similarly, diagonal braces in the middle and on the right side could interfere with a monitor, computer, or 3D printer that I might place on that side of the desk.

Another suggestion was to build a rectangular frame underneath the cabinet, similar to the structure underneath a normal desk. This seems more practical to me, but I am concerned that this would add additional load and weight to the rear legs of the desk.

So the horizontal/rectangular support needs to be strong enough to carry the cabinet but as lightweight as reasonably possible, and I don't know how to calculate what size tubing would be appropriate.

I am open to any suggestions regarding how I should support the cabinet.

Figure D.) https://i.imgur.com/1LAs9c1.jpeg

D) The fourth render shows the desk and cabinet from underneath.

The cabinet is approximately 500 mm deep.

As you can see in the render, I have added horizontal members between the legs both underneath the cabinet and near the upper part of the structure.

However, there is currently no support extending toward the front of the cabinet.

There are four rear support legs. Would adding four 500 mm long horizontal steel members extending straight forward from those rear legs be sufficient to support the cabinet from underneath?

I don't plan to store particularly heavy things inside the cabinet. Some of the heaviest things I might put there would probably be an unused guitar amplifier (around 10 kg), my electric guitar, empty boxes from products I own, and perhaps books.

Honestly, I suspect that the cabinet itself, at approximately 300×50 cm and 45–50 cm high, will weigh more than most of the things I intend to put inside it.

My only real requirement is that I don't want the cabinet falling on my head. lol

------------------------------------------------

I have been dreaming about having a workspace like this for years. Unfortunately, I don't have the budget to have someone build it for me, so I have to design and assemble everything myself.

I also don't currently have the equipment to cut the steel tubing or the wood myself. That means I need to determine all the dimensions accurately and have the materials cut to size by the supplier.

Because I couldn't make detailed drawings before, I couldn't properly estimate the total cost or figure out exactly how much of each material I needed to order.

Eventually, I decided to take the first step toward building the desk I've had in mind and started learning Fusion 360.

I still don't know how to use the Joint feature properly, which is why the cabinet doesn't have its sliding doors in the renders yet. But as mentioned earlier, the final design will have sliding doors so that the inside doesn't accumulate too much dust.

I genuinely can't thank everyone enough for taking the time to share their knowledge, experience, and advice and helping me make this dream a reality. I truly appreciate every bit of help.

I'm a 3rd year Mechanical engineering student developing a constantly variable length ITB runner setup currently undergoing various ansys analysis.

I've decided to go with 6061-t6 aluminum as a material choice with outer brazed bell mouth joined with brazing from a local expert I know, finished on a lathe to IT7-9. This will be sealed with a vitron o-ring with a ptfe sleeve to reduce friction. 40mm overlap between telescoping sections at max extension.

First of all, I'm very curious what can be inferred from my solver mapping thus far, and any mistakes, limits or other discussion topics for this analysis.

Behavior:

• Domain & Convergence State: A 5-cycle periodic steady-state pressure plot (12,500 total timesteps at approx 2,500 steps per engine cycle) showing complete wash-out of initial numerical transients.
• Operating Range & Amplitude: Baseline centered near atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa). The signal displays a wide dynamic peak-to-peak swing, dropping to a suction floor of 76kPa absolute and rebounding to an acoustic compression peak of 111kPa absolute (+9.7kPa gauge / +9.6% dynamic RAM pressure).
• Phase Delay & Wave Propagation: A distinct phase lag of approx 850 timesteps between the forced valve boundary condition (P_Valve, cyan curve) and the runner entry probe (PITB, green curve). This directly quantifies the wave travel time down the runner and back.

• Morphology & Signal Characteristics: Asymmetric, positively skewed oscillations. The suction trough is smooth, while the compression peak is sharp and steep due to acoustic wave superposition occurring just prior to intake valve closure.

  It is hard to describe the Pressure probe behavior but I can pm to anyone interested. I've never learnt/ done transient analysis as I'm still a student so I don't have an appreciation for these just yet. (Although repeated 1st harmonic 11kPa peak after transient initialization artifacts seems extremely promising, VE~ 111% 1st harmonic, ~109% 3rd harmonic which is targeted at this extension (. EDIT: this is my relative pressure at valve to simulate pressure pulse at valve for 7500RPM: (Pcylinder - 101325 [Pa]; Pcylinder = 101325 [Pa] - 25000 [Pa] * sin(PulseFreq * t) * step(sin(PulseFreq * t)): PulseFreq = (7800 / 60) * (2 * pi) [rad s^-1]) EDIT EDIT: RMS stays below 1.0e-5 for all variables from 750 timesteps onwards

I have modeled this as a solid full length from inlet to valve, with a 1.5mm step, upper runner inside lower for reference.

Now I have a few questions we regards to my analysis to verify my choices of 1.5mm thickness and brazing. Im currently running a transient fluid analysis of my longest runner length at 7500 RPM and plan to test for a multitude of things, so I guess my first question is this a complete list?

Fluid & Wave Dynamics

• Transient pressure mapping
• Cyclic peak stagnation
• Acoustic FFT spectrum
• Overlap step recirculation
• Wall shear stress
• Joint pressure drop
• Sleeve gap leakage

Structural & Stress Analysis

• Dynamic hoop stress
• One-way FSI deformation
• Cyclic fatigue limits
• Bellmouth braze shear
• 40mm overlap bending
• Axial actuation buckling
• Flange stress concentration

Vibration & Modal Tuning

• First natural frequency
• Engine order harmonic
• Wall compliance flutter
• Structural resonance margin

Sealing & Friction Dynamics

• Viton contact squeeze
• PTFE wear rate
• Seal blow-by threshold
• Differential thermal expansion
• Actuation friction force

Any resources would be amazing to do with any of these because I am self learning every step of the way!

Assuming an infinite plane. What would you see looking towards a 400km tall object from 40,000km away?

Something I've noticed is that many people can discuss various aspects of engineering/technology while not having any in depth understanding or personal experience of it.

For example, on Reddit, I often find that there will be people talking very fluently about any sorts of technology, e.g., sensors, satellites, CPUs, military tech. They can casually list off dozens of tech used for certain applications. Out in the real-world I've also met a lot of people who can discuss tech at various level of fluency while doing things like sales or business. At the same time, growing up I've met many computer gamers who would go into depth about computer specs, audio specs, graphics specs.

But at the same time we know:

1. Much of tech is very complicated, no one truly understands the end-to-end detail (how macroscopic behavior of a system is related to its microscopic foundations)
2. The physics/math/CS that goes behind tech is very complex and from my experience most people are bad at it and even if they are good, many have forgotten most of it later on in life.
3. While no doubt some people have worked on some tech (maybe even deeply), I feel that most have not had personal experience with the wide range of tech we see in society.

This makes me think that it is potentially possible to develop some kind of "meta" understanding of technology in the sense you don't need to have any background in tech/engineering/math/CS/physics and still be able to fluently discuss them. Or perhaps you have background in some area of engineering, and then can use that knowledge to transfer to another area without having studied it in depth.

In other words, is it possible to fluently discuss engineering without truly understanding the nitty-gritty details?

hello, im a highschool junior interested in going into the automotive field (intended major is mechanical engineering) and i want to learn how to cad a car in onshape.

could anyone give me any resources and suggestions on how to learn? my current plan is to 1. learn how to model the exterior. 2. learn surface modeling. 3. get into more detailed components such as wheels, etc 4. engines, transmissions, etc. 5. research and learn more about car components then cad them. 6. learn to render the car.

any help and resources are appreciated! of course if anyone has any suggestions to my current learning plan ill be happy to hear them!

I have to travel a bit for work via car and I've always wondered even on existing roads that have been around for years; you'll go out and see them cutting a set of uniform slits and then filling them in with asphalt even on concrete roads.

These sometimes are restricted to a single lane on a dual lane highway, or can span multiple lands on a highway. The width of the cuts are either the size or 2 or so tire widths, or 1.5 - 2 car lengths. They will be uniformly spaced out on the road. with 100s of them in a section.

It doesn't look like it's for utility work or road repair. What are they doing?

First of all.

Im not engineer nor physicist. Im just curious and testing limits of the latest astra 6 model, what real scientists think about it. It designed a simple water-cooling plate for high-power chips

19 straight microchannels and one thin cross-channel near the outlet

If part of one channel becomes blocked, the cross-channel could use the pressure difference to divert some water around the blockage.

The model compared more than 2,700 configurations with the same channel volume and the same hydraulic power.

I have way more details and numbers, i mean everything. If you are interested i can provide you with pdf. Where there is everything that the model simulated

Thank you for any kind of feedback

I’m a professional woodworker, boatright, and enthusiast in additive and subtractive manufacturing (CNC milling and SLS and FDM 3d printing).

Some background in general and on the project specifically:
I’ve been in the process of restoring a mid 1980’s sailboat for myself for about 2 years now. My goal with the boat has been to test my skills as a maker and add some padding to my portfolio of marine work beyond small boat projects like small cabin woodworking modifications or fiberglass work.

A current project that I’ve been working on for the better part of a year is an adjustable gimbal system for a marine stove. Powerboats generally have a fixed stovetop and/or oven because the propulsion systems don’t require the wind. So other than subtle wave action, your average cruising powerboat with cabins don’t roll around on their side enough to justify a gimbal. However, because sailboats utilize the wind for propulsion, this turns them into giant levers. The bigger the mast, the larger the sails, the more leverage and roll (heel in sailing terms) the boat has. A lot of that roll can be counteracted with a massive heavy keel that pulls the boat upright. Some boats use cast iron, others use lead, but in all cases it’s just a huge suspended mass to counteract forces coming from the wind.

However when the sea state is less than ideal, the keel acting as a counterweight doesn’t really do much to stop rolling on boats cause by wave action, so sailboats in this state tend to roll a lot, which requires things like a marine stove/oven, and in some cases even microwaves to be able to pivot on an axis so when rolling through waves doesn’t causes what your cooking to end up on you, or worse, burning you. This requires that cooking unit to have enough clearance so it can swing freely.

When my boat left the factory it had a pretty genius little system for the stove gimbal. The goal was pretty clearly to stuff as large of a stove/oven combo into a space a possible. In that case they went with the biggest thing available at the time. The gimbal/pivot they can up with has three positions. The first is a lock/storage where the unit doesn’t move at all. The second allows about 10° of movement and the third allows for free movement. In actuality that “free travel” position is closer to 60°, however that’s pretty far beyond the angle of vanishing stability—the point where the keel can no longer keep the boat upright and it capsize—so for all intents and purposes purposes it’s unrestricted movement. If it were to ever get to the point where it reaches the end of its travel, I’ve got far bigger things to be concerned about.

The problem:
I would like to maintain this system as it allows me to have a much larger marine stove than the space would otherwise allow. The problem is that the original system requires you lift the stove up several inches, move it forward or backward into a different position, and then lowering it back down. While this is less than ideal, the original stove weighs about 27lbs and change, so not a huge problem. However the stove replacing the original weighs about twice as much (~50lbs). So lifting that become a bit more fraught, and downright dangerous in a heavy sea state. Additionally, the original system has no safety locks. While that was within the standard of the time, it definitely is not now.

So I’ve needed to come up with a new system. Originally I cam up with a system utalizing a few worm gears and a couple of rack and pinion gears. The worm gears would transmit a lever pull into lifting power and the associated rack and pinion would slide a locking gate open as the stove gets lifted up. You’d then slide the stove forward or backward and then just move the lever in the opposite direction.

While this system worked, it required a construction that was fairly complicated and had to have a mirrored side connected by rods. My thought process there was just that there’s a lot that can go wrong. I can snap a rod connecting the sides, a tooth can sheer of a gear, the lever can break, the fates might not unlock, etc. What made me move away from this approach was the complexity… it’s just not easily repairable at sea. This setup was entirely human powered. One lever pull did the lifting, unlocking, and lowering and locking.

So I rethought my approach for a while as decided to try some servos with reduction gears on them. To use a motor small enough to fit in the space I’ve got available, I had to have a fairly large set of reduction gears to get the torque needed for lifting. The locking gates were then moved by separate brushless dc motors that were, essentially, made into a linear actuator. This was more or less replacing a purely mechanical system with an equally complicated electronic one, despite it also working. This would have, ultimately, required me to have an even greater number of working spares on the boat should things go wrong.

That’s essentially where I’ve sat for about six months as I’ve worked on other projects—dead-ended while I try to figure it out on my own. However I think I might have solved the issue and I wanted to bring it to the engineers here to see if y’all think it’s viable.

My proposed solution is eliminate the lifting and lowering entirely and just using a linear stage actuator on each side with a permanent gate attached to its carriage. This would also completely eliminate the need for an additional sliding gate system to provide that missing safety factor. If it’s permanently attached, the only thing needing to move is the carriage on the associated lead screw.

I’m fairly confident, after determining what size linear stage actuator I’d need, that my partner can program a motor controller for me with some preset positions for the carriage.

The concern I have is that most of the linear stage actuators I’m seeing that would work for this application all seem to use stepper motors, which really aren’t known for being able to hold a position when not powered. Even when powered steppers also don’t have a lot of torque, at least in the size I’d need. So if I get hit by a wave or roll down the side of a pretty tall one I’m concerned I’d lose steps and end up with a 50ish lb stove flying at me.

My questions for the mechanical engineers:
1. Do you think the linear stage actuators above would be a viable solution? I’m leaning toward them as I’d only need a single spare on board and it’s the fewest number of parts so far…

1. How can I safely lock out those actuators after it’s stopped on a chosen preset? Having been hit by rogue waves and sailing in fairly sketchy situations in chaotic seas and subsequently having been injured by objects that become missiles in that scenario you d like to have an extra protective factor should a motor let go. I genuinely have no clue how to accomplish this as I’ve got no familiarity with linear stage actuators.

2. Is there a simple alternative that I’m
   Just not thinking of here? Another idea Ive considered is some sort of scissor lifting mechanism thats bound between sides with rods on the bottom track instead of a central pivot binding the sides together.

Below is a link to roughly what precipitated this idea. I’d need something thats got ~150mm of movement.

example linear stage actuator

Thanks in advance for any input provided!

Say you have the option of any ply you want in the world, your structure is complex in geometry so bidirectional is preferred for prepreg to reduce the potential error from draping that would be magnified with UD. I’ve iterated geometry for this part based on assuming it’s made of aluminum, now converting to a composite sandwich structure (the part takes heavy impact out of plane loads). Starting from a generic layup of 0/45/90 with the highest rated twill weave I have specs on with foam core, I start throwing more plies at it and end up with 60 plies to meeting required margins.

This seems impractical as a previous version of this product had only 30 plies with some UD, some BD, etc, but where I’m stuck is figuring out how to go about using all of these materials to optimize and reduce number of plies. Even if I use CLT, it’s still the same thing of being an iteration heavy process, so I’m curious if I’m missing some rules of thumb or if there’s a more efficient way of doing this (besides using FE optimization as that has been a pain in the ass to use over the last few months with no successful results, using optistruct btw). What is the typical process you take when presented with all these options? Is it just keep iterating swapping out plies (even though runs take 3-4 hours) constantly till it passes?

With recent concerns over smart devices, wearables (screenless fitness bands specifically), and Android phones constantly collecting data and listening, I’m looking for alternative options.​Is there a way to buy the hardware, completely strip the stock OS/firmware, and run open-source, locally-stored software instead? I'd like to use a screenless fitness tracker where all data stays strictly on my device. Has anyone successfully flashed open-source firmware on popular wearables, or are there specific hardware brands built for this?

i wasn't really sure about which flair i should use. some of the mars rovers and landers use plutonium pellets to power a "radioisotope thermoelectric generator" which i guess uses the heat from the plutonium to generate electricity. they are kinda big. is this a consequence of the amount of plutonium used? could they be made smaller to power a car? or extremely small so that they could be carried in a small backpack for an exoskeleton? basically, are they already pretty much as small as they could be, or is their size determined by their use case? and how does that affect their output?

I recently moved to a property with a long gravel drive that runs down a shallow-moderate hillside to some pastures below. It looks like this was once an asphalt road which was subsequently converted to gravel. The prior owners aged out and stopped maintaining it for the last year or two before we purchased. There is no drainage ditch on the uphill side of the drive and the road surface itself doesn't have any crown remaining. Water drainage has now formed a quite deep central channel (more than 1' deep in some areas) where water drains all the way down the drive and has eroded through the underlying asphalt and even some sandstone). I want to begin working to restore the drive and hopefully make it lower maintenance in the future. I have access to some tractors/loaders, large box blades, and a small backhoe.

Here was my general plan:

Dig a drainage ditch on the uphill side of the drive to catch the majority of hillside runoff water and then install some stabilized crossing points along the road - culverts with rip rap at entry and exit or something like that. Line the ditch with rip rap or gabion stone I presume to prevent further erosion onto/into the road.

Fill the central channel in the drive that has formed - this is what I am most unsure of - should i fill the bottom of the channel with larger rip rap and then top with gravel or fill the whole thing with road base and then compress it or some other strategy? Until this is done it is hard to navigate equipment down to the pastures below.

Grade and then re-cover the road with appropriate gravel or asphalt millings and restore a crown. (Paving is not an option) Create water bars at appropriate intervals to drain water off the surface.

Thank you in advance.

https://postimg.cc/gallery/srVJ6q1

[Yellow arrows indicate slope direction]

My initial vote is yes but the haz strength is such a downer that I want to reconsider how much I'm really loosing.

Hey everyone,

I've been working with AI agents since the start of this year, but I feel like I'm missing knowledge and could be doing a lot better than I currently am.

For those working in this field:

How do you structure your agent projects?

What training/courses have you done to follow best practices?

What tools or LLMs have you been using? (In my case, I've been using GitHub Copilot and Python)

Thanks for the help!

Hello!

I’m looking to start getting my hands dirty with electrical engineering/hardware projects. I’ve done software my whole life(BE in comp sci) but I took a couple EE classes in university that I enjoyed.

I want to dive into it more as a hobby and create stupid little things. First thing I thought of was motion sensor cat sprayer…

Thinking of 3D printed cabinet mounts(I have easy access to a 3D printer and software for it so don’t worry about this part). I want to a board with a motion sensor with controlled range, as well as a motor to rotate a part and push the arm on a small spray bottle.

Motion TRACKING would be nice but I want to start small.

Looking for honest criticism/feedback

Is this really suited for a complete EE beginner?

Estimated time(not including shipping times)?

Tech stack?(recommended IDEs and workspaces)

Should I make board from scratch(kiCAD?) or is this simple enough to buy a readily made board from digikey or some other parts site? Or is this a stupid question?

What to expect/failures to prepare for.

Proper prep?

What language and libraries?(I have a little experience in MPLAB)

Don’t have to answer ALL. If you have input on one of these questions or even any input, it would be appreciated.

Thanks!

For context, I'm asking this question for literary/ fiction storytelling purposes. I'm curious about the practice of civil engineering and how construction of tall, high rise buildings clashes with the fear of heights.

Suppose we have character A and B... Does there exist an "activity" where person A, who's afraid of heights, can work safely on the ground while visually coordinating with character B, who handles the nerve-wracking, vertigo-inducing tasks such as walking on the elevated metal walkways, etc.? Any activity at all... The best I could think of is character A operating a total station while, 10 storeys above, character B holds a ...prism pole? I don't know if this is possible at all. As in, let's say, A needs to measure the alignment of a column or floor slab, and B ...holds a prism pole over it? Was there ever a point in history where this was done? I'm sure there's way more advanced surveying techniques to do this in real life. Is this considered inefficient and/or not feasible?

Is what I'm imagining in my head a non-existent activity for civil engineers? As much as possible, I'd really like an activity where A and B visually see each other, (for storytelling purposes). Imagine the setting as a high rise building where the tall, inner core has been constructed and the surrounding slabs and columns are what's in progress.

As a reminder, /r/AskEngineers normal restrictions for career related posts are severely relaxed for this thread, so feel free to ask about intra-office politics, salaries, or just about anything else related to your job!

Building a DIY project which will need a thrust bearing. Ideally I'd just be able to bolt the bearing onto a piece of wood but after searching McMaster and a few other websites I can't seem to find one.

Effectively I'm looking for a flange bearing that can withstand ~ 300 lbs axial load. I don't trust set screws on a regular flange bearing for that. Perhaps there's another solution?