Electrical engineering, robotics, controls, and embedded systems.
Exploring robotic systems to find value in the gaps between disciplines, industries, and established ways of solving problems.
Systems built, tested, and iterated
Case studies focus on what I was responsible for, how the design evolved, what was tested, and what the evidence supports.
All projects
Technical work experience
Industrial robotics, automation machinery, commissioning, and regulated aerospace engineering.
The first workable answer should rarely be treated as the final one.
Most engineering problems already have an obvious path: the established architecture, the familiar product category, or the solution the industry has converged on. Understanding that answer matters. Understanding how and why it became the status quo matters more. But the most interesting question is what happens when the problem is viewed from a slightly different angle? Features, constraints, or unsolved problems that were previously orthogonal to the original vision can suddenly become visible.
Sometimes that means attacking the source of a problem rather than improving the conventional treatment of its symptoms. Sometimes it means choosing an architecture that appears unusual at first but creates cleaner interfaces between subsystems, allows parts to be developed and tested in parallel, reduces the cost of iteration, simplifies maintenance, and makes future revisions less likely to disturb what already works. Those advantages do not only improve the first prototype. They compound through development, production, service, and the useful life of the system.
Other times, two competing approaches each contain part of the right answer, and the strongest solution emerges by combining the best of both into a third option.
Robotics makes this way of thinking especially valuable because mechanical design, electronics, sensing, controls, software, autonomy, manufacturing, and testing rarely exist in isolation. The gaps between those disciplines can reveal opportunities and small efficiency gains that are easy to miss when each problem is considered independently. Individually, those gains may seem minor. Stacked together, they can preserve design freedom, contain the consequences of failure, make future capabilities easier to add, reduce how often one decision forces several others to change, and create ripple effects that shape both short-term development and the long-term evolution of the system.
The goal is not to be different for the sake of being different. Conventional solutions usually exist for good reasons. The opportunity is to understand those reasons well enough to recognize when the status quo should be preserved, when it should be reborn, and when looking at both from a slightly different perspective can avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Ideas that seemed impractical or impossible five or ten years ago can become viable as technology, tools, and surrounding infrastructure evolve. The most compelling work is often the work that recognizes those shifts early and uses them where they can produce the greatest impact with the fewest resources. That space sits between understanding the accepted solution, questioning the assumptions around it, recognizing what has recently become possible, and combining those ideas into a stronger system.