When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Interesting article. Those at the top have been sold a bill of goods by the computer software companies: "The package will do the work, and the engineer just has to run it." Sorry, no.
Unfortunately, that is like paying the CEO to wash his own windows and empty the trash. It just doesn't work that way.
True engineering talent is wasted, no one is brought up through the ranks, and most engineers are simply paper pushers.
True engineering talent is wasted, no one is brought up through the ranks, and most engineers are simply paper pushers.
Yup, agreed. I'm old enough to remember the smell of ammonia from the blueprint machines and you could tell from the arrowheads who made the drawing [without looking at the title block].
In a somewhat related vein, this recent announcement from GE has an enormous future effect on manufacturing.
Obligatory pic. 1ST additive mfg part cleared for flight by the FAA:
One particular paragraph:
Using additive manufacturing, they consolidated 855 components into just a dozen parts. The simpler design reduced weight, improved fuel burn by as much as 20 percent and achieved 10 percent more power. Using 3D printing for rapid prototyping, the team was also able to cut development time by a third.
The vast majority of those 855 prior components needed to be machined to 'fit' onto/in/with the others. The 12 remaining only needed to be 'finished'...
Erat I'd say that can indicate precision almost like sig figs.
I think this is important. Mathmatically 1/8 is the same as 0.125, but the latter implies a whole lot more precision than the former does. If the system is being spec'd in inches, then it's a whole lot simpler to write "1/8" than it is to write "0.125 +/- 0.0625".
Of course, it'd be simpler to just do it all in mm to start with, but...
And because this is the random pics thread, here's a cool car I saw at the track a couple weeks ago:
Some drafters today don't even know why they do things. What I hate the most is the drawing made entirely in fine yellow lines. How the **** am I supposed to print that?
Some drafters today don't even know why they do things. What I hate the most is the drawing made entirely in fine yellow lines. How the **** am I supposed to print that?
Or when someone "helps you out" and draws everything on the same layer.
That 'death of draftsmen' was interesting read... Its funny to me because our company is trying to go model based (no more drawings) in the next 5-10 years and suppliers are already losing their minds. And I fight PLM and doc revision control for 50% of my time. I'd say 20% is actual engineering work.
Also funny- GD&T is being pushed down from sr management to improve quality and reduce cost. All its doing is driving part cost up because 90% of our suppliers (Taiwan) hate it and don't understand it. We get the same parts regardless.
That 'death of draftsmen' was interesting read... Its funny to me because our company is trying to go model based (no more drawings) in the next 5-10 years and suppliers are already losing their minds. And I fight PLM and doc revision control for 50% of my time. I'd say 20% is actual engineering work.
Also funny- GD&T is being pushed down from sr management to improve quality and reduce cost.
Doesn't this kind of go with the above? All the geometric and tolerancing data needs to be in an annotated model for it to actually help manufacturing.
Doesn't this kind of go with the above? All the geometric and tolerancing data needs to be in an annotated model for it to actually help manufacturing.
Yeah- the GD&T thing is just a waste of everyone's time on drawings (especially for our simple parts). No one actually understands it and the supplier charges MORE even though the tolerances are actually wider because the drawing is hard to understand.
I liked our old style drawings- we could have *dimensions that notified the supplier to try hard on this feature/tolerance/surface finish. Actually worked really well.
I was typing out all the fun **** I did in my 30 years of drafting and about to paste a picture of the first drafting machine I used and the post vanished. I blame IB.
Anyway, it was in high school and was a Vemco V-Track kinda like this:
Dark wood grain and everything. SO COOOOL on a giant tilty table.
My experience has been that GTD can better define requirements many times. However, it is still true that they typically have to be explained.
We use 3D models accompanied by 2D prints with minimal dimensions, typically those that need tight controls.
When you have a good supplier, he can take 3D models and turn them into parts / molds / tools in short order. If you both understand the capabilities of the manufacturing system, then it is easy to get what you expect. (wire EDM for instance).
The treatment of engineers as if we are a typing pool will not end well. We are individuals with unique backgrounds and skills. Software will not change that.
What is the GD&T thing? Thankfully I got out of the mechanical biz 1 year ago.
Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing. Symbols and numbers designed to make engineering drawings universal. Somewhat confusing to old timers in the shop.
I did a couple semesters of drafting in high school with one of those 'L' ruler tables. Always got points taken off for bad handwriting. haha
Originally Posted by DNMakinson
My experience has been that GTD can better define requirements many times. However, it is still true that they typically have to be explained.
We use 3D models accompanied by 2D prints with minimal dimensions, typically those that need tight controls.
When you have a good supplier, he can take 3D models and turn them into parts / molds / tools in short order. If you both understand the capabilities of the manufacturing system, then it is easy to get what you expect. (wire EDM for instance).
The treatment of engineers as if we are a typing pool will not end well. We are individuals with unique backgrounds and skills. Software will not change that.
I agree- GDT is a great tool if you have parts that need it and suppliers that understand it. It is not well understood in Taiwan by our suppliers- causing problems and our senior management is unwilling to go backwards.
I think we are headed in the direction of sending a 3d model and a few tolerances called out on a print that need special attention. The current transition state is frustrating.
11-20-2017, 03:39 PM
0
