<sigh>
Imagine if you will - an engineer (pretty scary already). Assume that said engineer designs something on the basis of their ability to engineer said design. (All clear so far? It gets worse!)

Now imagine a designer - Assume that said designer engineers something in order to justify the existance of a design.

OK - I'm getting there.... The point is - anything design'd by an engineer is likely to be without use (aka USELESS) and anything engineer'd by a designer is likely to be disfunctional....NOW here it comes....
 
 

The submersible toaster is an example that fits the criteria for BOTH of these discrepancies.  An engineer may well be capable of producing a functional submersible toaster... but what would be the point since the device would never have a use because the resultant product (toast) would in fact be warm, soggy mush (Very poor design).

Conversely - a designer upon engineering a submersible toaster would discover that whilst the existance of design for a submersible toaster would allow for huge leaps forwards in modern underwater food technology the engineering overheads (water+electricity???) would make for a device doomed never to work.

If you feel that you've wasted enuff time (and indeed valuable synaptic activity) perhaps now would be a good juncture to mention that in no way were any toasters harmed in the production of this site - excepting of course virtual toasters which when all is said and done took an absolute flogging. To promote humane treatment for small appliances you may wish to visit this site here.

So what am I really trying to say here - I suppose the general idea is that designers are well advised to THINK about the logistical problems that accompany their designs & engineers would do well not to design totally useless objects just to show what fabulous engineers they are.

The world's only AssKicking Machine is another example (I believe) of a 'submersible toaster' - please visit the world's only AssKicking Machine and consider this....