We develop focused tools for research and teaching. Discuss an experimental-data workflow, an interactive laboratory exercise or a method-comparison tool with a defined input, output and review process.
These are proposed forms of work. Each engagement begins by agreeing the scientific context, deliverables and checks with the research or teaching team.
Problem: a recurring calculation depends on manual steps or an undocumented worksheet.
Try now: inspect formulas, inputs and limitations in the engineering toolkit.
Proposed delivery: one bounded calculation module, agreed input checks, reference-case tests and a method note. The team supplies the method, its intended use and independently checked expected results.
Discuss a research tool →Problem: measurement tables and figure choices are repeatedly reconstructed for reports.
Try now: summarize one group in Replicate Statistics and plot supplied series in Graph Studio.
Proposed delivery: a documented input template, preparation checks, an agreed figure layout and example outputs. Define the sampling unit and SD or SEM meaning together. Inspect a synthetic-data example.
Discuss a data workflow →Problem: learners can obtain a number without seeing how units or boundary conditions affect it.
Try now: explore Unit Converter and supported Beam Deflection cases.
Proposed delivery: an interactive exercise with a limited set of cases, visible assumptions, instructor reference answers and a short teaching guide. Learning objectives and the intended student level set the scope.
Discuss a teaching module →Problem: outputs from different methods look comparable while relying on different assumptions.
Try now: inspect the Goodman and Soderberg sections of Fatigue Workbench with the applicable material and loading inputs.
Proposed delivery: a comparison interface for explicitly selected methods, shared input definitions, applicability notes and agreed reference cases. A comparison supports scrutiny; it does not establish which model is valid for an experiment.
Discuss a method-comparison tool →Use a small, non-confidential reference example to make the expected behavior concrete.
Services & example scopes →Public browser tools process inputs locally. Save the projects or outputs you want to keep; a local work package can hold supported reviewed calculation records.
A scoped tool does not validate an experimental design, establish publication readiness or certify standards compliance. The browser Graph Studio plots supplied data; it does not perform fitting, regression or statistical tests.
A short description is enough to start. Include the input format, desired result and one way you would check whether it is correct.
Explain the scientific or teaching question, the current steps, the number and role of intended users, and the output you need. State any environment, timing, documentation or accessibility requirements. Use a synthetic or non-confidential example; the contact form has no file-upload step.
Agree data access, permitted use, software licensing, source-code delivery, publication attribution and maintenance before work begins. Do not include personal, confidential or unpublished research data in the initial inquiry. The data-handling information describes the public site.
The page prepares a local email draft with Research & teaching and Custom scope selected. Review and copy or download it, then choose whether to send it through your email application. Preparing a draft does not send a message or start a contract.
Start with the workflow. Together we can define an implementable scope and a way to review the result.
