Uncategorized

Archive for Uncategorized

The Effect of Solid Modeling Upon the Inventor, the Product Developer, and Upon the Marketplace

By John S Chabot

The rapid improvement, even the perfecting one might call it, of solid modeling technology has ushered in a new era of manufacturing. The inventor of mechanical entities is now streamlined in his progress compared to previous drawing board technology.  The product developer is more comprehensive in the extension of his product features and product functionality.  The marketplace has several potentialities due to the nature of this new era.  The marketplace could experience an explosion of new products due to the lightning speed at which a product can now be made ready for market.  The marketplace could see a great improvement in initial engineering quality.  It is now quite possible to be very thorough in our investigations of a mechanical entity prior to production tool procurement and prior to marketing.  This thorough investigation can be accomplished at minimal cost.  The greater integration of material science as well as a wider use of composite schemes in order to achieve a specific function is another potential of this new era.  In this new era we will probably see fewer engineering changes but these few will happen with ease and with great rapidity.  The engineer has so much already accomplished and on file that recalling and editing are as easy as, recall, save as, open… and then facilitate the necessary changes.

 

What has facilitated the speed of engineering?  What is so different from previous T-square and slide rule technology?  A greater depth and plurality of specific knowledge is now the norm for the inventor and the product developer.  In short, far greater knowledge is made readily available to the engineer.  Said knowledge is key to good judgments both proximate and remote.  Immediately upon creation of a design, length, breadth, height, weight, strength, ascetic appeal, and functional capabilities can be explored with the cost of a few clicks of the mouse.  The aforesaid is but the tip of the iceberg as far as specific knowledge is concerned.  The most appropriate “umbrella” term to describe solid modeling in comparison to boardroom technology is far greater visualization.  As extensive a value as the term great visualization is, it still does not describe completely the aforesaid comparison.  The ease and almost insignificant expense with which a project engineer is now able to change paths, once a new idea dawns upon him, is but one further example of what is now possible with solid modeling technology.  If an initial plan was to manufacture a casting as part of an assembly, but upon considering the model, an inexpensive purchased item could be made to work, a significant economic benefit is procured for a few clicks of the mouse.  Consider even further, usually the purchased item can be imported by way of a digital file.  This blows away previous technology when you consider the time required to draw just one item, even a purchased item.  The very rapid rate at which problems as well as opportunities become apparent to the inventor and the product developer has made it possible to manufacture things well the first time.  This is true largely because thoroughness need not cost as much as it did with boardroom technology.  The project engineer might consider, “is someone else going to be more thorough and in so doing take the market for my product away from me?”  This consideration, I am sure, will be a catalyst for many good engineering decisions on future products.

 

Solid modeling is now a very readily available service.  It is now a very quick process especially when you consider the relative permanence and usefulness of the result, that is, the digital file.  This file can be copied, imported, used directly to engineer a full line of tools, dies, molds, machines, and patterns to name but a few. This same file can become part of an assembly by way of a customer importing it into their own larger system.  I once built a replacement tube bending gage, for the F-14 aircraft, using a digital file of the tube.  The gage was entirely dimensioned from a bent tube model produced in SolidWorks.  In this case the lost gage was replaced with less cost than the cost of the original gage I am sure.  The door of possibilities due to modern solid modeling may just be beginning to open.

 

Previous technology revolved around integrity of communication.  Solid modeling revolves around this same value as well.  From the concept author, through the many support personnel, who process communicated ideas from infancy through to mass production, a scenario of many talented personnel working toward a very clear final cause is the norm of any day, in the manufacturing world.  Supremely key to this effort is accuracy and completeness of communication as well as the accuracy and completeness of perception.  This accuracy, using boardroom technology, depended heavily on the three or four view drawing. (Front, Top, Side, Bottom)   The initial drawing needed to be minimal to avoid the high cost of superfluously applied lead.  It needed to be sufficiently complicated to convey an unambiguous complete thing.  Orthographic views, section views, detail views and more, were all kept to a minimum due to the cost of producing them.  Compared to solid modeling, the four view drawing system, is at least as slow as pony express mail is compared to email.   Visualization in the days of the drafting rooms and sharp pencils is far inferior to a SolidWorks digital file. In those days the mind of the person reading the blueprint still had the task of rotating the part.  3D conceptualization was accomplished in the blue print readers mind, often requiring significant time and effort.  Apprenticeship programs required several years of blueprint reading in the course curriculum.  With a SolidWorks solid model visualization is quick, complete, and inexpensive.  It is not that uncommon to have no paper drawings for a job even though paper drawings are still in many situations a very big help. Information, upon which important decisions depend, is readily referenced and then can be acted upon saving greatly on time and material compared to the previous technology.  Consider, for instance, how quickly one can get a new section view, a more specific detail view, or even a more specific set of dimensions pertaining to any part engineered in a solid modeling program.  It is now only a matter of a few mouse clicks and this greater specificity is achieved.  No angled orthographic drawing tools, no erasing, and no beating of calculator buttons required.  If a solid modeled part requires an engineering change, a change affecting many or even all of the dimensions, the drawings need only to be reprinted they do not need to be redrawn.

 

Inventing, and all engineering for that matter, requires first that the engineer clearly defines a need.  That being done a multiplicity of procedural paths can be taken to satisfy said need.  Using boardroom technology, once the functional need was defined a race against time and expense was initiated.  Authoring suitable geometry, selecting materials, procuring prototypes, judging the proper complexity of tooling and so forth, all had to be achieved usually within a budget that was quoted (and therefore concretely limited) before a single item commenced.  The agonizing length, from crude concept to saleable product, was trying to say the least, on investors an all personnel involved.  Many products were never produced because these articles appeared marginally risky, without anyone being willing to take that risk.  With the advancement of solid modeling we may witness an explosion of new products, products whose risk has now been accurately assessed.

 

Formerly marginal risk products can readily be comprehensively investigated through the use of solid modeling.  The solid model, once authored, reveals a sufficient quantity of specific knowledge for the investigator to make a prudent decision whether to proceed to the next step or abandon ship.  Even the next step of prototype procurement is far less expensive than it was even 20 years ago.  Those products possessing a more than marginal risk can now readily be explored more fully rather than being so quickly abandoned.  This is because the control of the expenses necessary to product development is greatly enhanced with solid modeling technology.  Cost projection is a dream compared to 40 years ago.

 

Solid modeling, used well, is fast.  Solid modeling well used is revealing. Many things limited in previous boardroom technology to ambiguous guesses are now readily quantifiable.  It took very good men to put ships in the water, planes in the sky, and high performance tools into the hands of surgeons using boardroom technology.  It will take very good men again to extract the full potential from solid modeling technology.  While many good things about Solidworks and solid modeling have been attested to in this article, something should be said about what it cannot do.  Solid modeling can never be original.  It is a tool to express ideas as well as a tool to convey ideas.  Solid modeling can never produce ideas.

Posted in: Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

What Is An Inventor and What It Means to Invent

By John S Chabot

Inventions fascinate people. I would venture to say, almost universally. The further we judge an invention from being within our own capabilities to produce, the more fascinated we are with it. I doubt I would have ever thought of the aerofoil. Even simpler inventions win from us a sort of applause for the winner that easily could have been me, had I been a little quicker. If the current sticky-note inventor had not been born I am sure many other people would have thought of it.

Most of us have heard the phrase, “necessity is the mother of invention.” This allegedly American proverb (actually it is much older) is accepted as an adequate explanation for inventions, while saying nothing at all about what “is” an invention. The French, in a curiously similar manner, say “Fear is a great inventor.” Even Mark Twain felt compelled to declare an abstract link to inventing when he said, “Accident is the name of the greatest of all inventors.” While necessity, fear, and accidents may all be observable and materially present preceding the emergence of an invention, none of these defines an invention; none of these tells us how a human being invents. At best, these phrases describe a catalyst or a motivator, these are not complete descriptions. These are not definitions.

The word “invention” means finding or discovery, if my introduction to Latin is of any value. This might give us some insight initially but let us explore whether that which is discovered is original or the result of some previous input. The words of Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792), both objective and sincere, appear worthy of investigation: “Invention strictly speaking, is little more than a new combination of those images which have previously gathered and deposited in the memory; nothing can come from nothing.” The key contention proffered by Sir Joshua Reynolds is, nothing can come from nothing.

The human reaction often elicited by an invention when perceived initially reveal some universal consent worth noting. For often thereat we hear exclamations such as, “That guy was thinking!” or “what a clever idea!” If these two exclamations have value, we can then say that thoughts and ideas are essential to inventions. What is a thought? What is an idea? If we allow that thoughts are the work of the mind, and if we further allow that ideas are that upon which the mind works we can readily explore and formulate a rational doctrine about inventing, even if it is done on a hypothetical premise. That which is hypothetical in the formula is not at all far-fetched or irrational. Let us first look at the material substance of the act of thinking, the idea. From there we can easily grasp how this thing called the idea can be manipulated.

The idea is the mind’s representation of a reality. This is the common understanding in western civilization. The mind acquires and accumulates ideas, first from sense experience after said experience passes through the process of abstraction. Often, with the theater of life’s experiences, sense experience is stored in the proper power but abstracted essences arrived at by the mind working upon sense experience, are stored in another faculty, the intellectual memory. These abstracted essences are ideas.

Ideas are classified under several categories but let us briefly consider the category of complexity. An idea is either simple or compound. A simple idea needs only one note to describe it. “Dark” or “fast” or “wet” or “yellow” are examples of simple ideas. A compound idea uses multiple simple ideas to describe it. Most of our ideas are compound that is why we have dictionaries listing the set of simple ideas which define a compound idea. Within this realm of activity lies the process of inventing. Thus we see, by the fact that dictionaries exist, that we are capable of taking apart compound ideas into the group of specific simple ideas describing said compound idea. We call this “taking apart” analysis. We can also perceive that simple ideas can be combined to construct new and original compound ideas. This “combining” is called synthesis. I think the observant reader already knows by now what an inventor is or what it means to invent.

Analysis and synthesis are two simple acts of the mind and these two actions comprise the heart of inventing. Inventing is essentially an act of synthesis. What is synthesized? In the act of inventing that which is synthesized is an arrangement of simple ideas and this arrangement comprises a new compound idea. While the arrangement may be original the constituent parts are not original. Similarly a very common thing like a pile of bricks may be rearranged thereby producing a structure unlike any previous arrangement of bricks. The bricks are not an original idea. The new structure could be very original.

Who then, is most likely to invent? Every human being with functioning mental faculties can invent. One need only perform the simple act of the mind called abstraction in order to store, initially from sense experience, a library of simple ideas. These ideas thus stored are recalled and arranged in a new and original scheme that usually responds to a need. What an inventor does first is define a need. He then goes to work arranging ideas until he finds an arrangement that works. The disposition toward inventing, that is the willingness to define a need, as well as the willingness to search within and without in order to discover an arrangement that solves the need, is of course essential to the inventor’s personality. In addition to this necessary disposition is the large library of simple ideas, abstracted and stored from many previous projects.

Due to the large variety of life experiences from which he can draw, the seasoned inventor sometimes appears way too confident about the challenge in front of him. Just ask him to tell you about all of the things he made that didn’t work. You will not only enjoy a good laugh, you will also come to know that good inventors have failed often. They did not fail permanently because every failure added to their library of ideas. Failing intelligently is foundational to becoming a good inventor.

The author has already had a significant career inventing. His high tech endeavors over the last 40 years necessitated the invention of many clever products, assemblies, tools, machines, and processes. He is now making available the accrued experience to those in need of product development or those in need of a sensible approach to manufacturing their product. Channeled through his SolidWorks solid modeling service, decades of his practical experience, help an enormous variety of customers get their projects firmly on track. Visit his website at: http://www.stjosephtool.com Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=John_S_Chabot

Posted in: Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

The Seasoned Craftsman As an Invaluable Digital File Author

By John S Chabot

SolidWorks, ProE, Catia and every program capable of producing a digital file, are tools. Being tools, these programs have a potential. Realizing the fullness of said potential renders the acquisition of the tool prudent and profitable. Who, after all, is more worthy of handing a two thousand dollar set of wrenches and high tech hand tools, a child or a seasoned mechanic? The former has little grasp of what the tools do or what can be done to them, the latter should have so much experiential knowledge that he is able to do even more than the original designer of the tools envisioned. In this sense solid modeling programs have a potential. It is a potential that requires a mind well seasoned with experiential knowledge of manufacturing in addition to the many experiences, stored in memory, of generating geometry. The larger part of manufacturing deals with generating purposeful geometry, simple or complex.

When a human resource manager considers a company’s need for solid modeling personnel, the gravity of popular thought often focuses on the price per hour and adequate design ability, hoping by these two considerations to arrive at the all important end goal of strategic gainful employment completely compatible with the company’s product line. For many companies a superficial faithfulness to this principal is adequate, particularly those enterprises whose product line does not depend heavily on new concepts or new ideas, but is rather heavily accented toward efficiency and market demand and market share science.

Those companies, however, who serve the world’s markets with new products on a regular basis, might want to take a closer look at the “adequate design ability” part of the formula. A generic engineering change, involving size, hole locations etc., is a far different task than visualizing a complete product or assembly when a customer’s ideas are not quite complete or whose ideas (the customer’s) need development. In such an environment the lack of experiential knowledge results in the solid modeling professional agonizing over each decision and consuming a lot of expensive time.

Enter the “old” guy. He is quick at solid modeling like his young counterpart, but preceding the acquisition of his solid modeling skills was, in some instances, a quarter century of personal experiences generating geometry and applying various principles of physics. Together with the added years of solid modeling alongside the continued mechanical problem solving and idea perfecting, he has become a reservoir of great ideas. Said person rarely has cause to agonize over the next mouse click for the simple reason that he has oftentimes, long before, seen something or experienced something like the challenge presently in front of him. The “old” guy is as unlikely to produce a digital file that doesn’t work as Michelangelo was to produce something repulsive. He is as unlikely to author a digital model for something impossible to manufacture as Beethoven was likely to compose something impossible to hear. The “old” guy has become, over many decades, an industrial artist

What companies need from solid modeling personnel is value. Value translates into procuring a product ready to manufacture and in digital form, without paying for idle time. This need is often filled adequately by the conventionally trained fellow with good grades and excellent work habits. At other times the industrial artist is needed to get the project off the ground. On such occasions outsourcing the latter type of work or employing at least one seasoned professional is the best solution.

John Chabot is a seasoned craftsman previously engaged in a wide variety of high tech industrial endeavors. He is now dedicated almost exclusively to solid modeling. Visit his website, http://www.stjosephtool.com, where presently a few, of many more to come, solid modeling/inventing samples are illustrated.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=John_S_Chabot

Posted in: Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (2) →