CAD in creative design, problem solving
in [SolidWorks]
|
Prev: When Jon Banquer Asks The Beginner Questions With The First Letter Of Every Word Capitalized...
Next: import Revit data
From: Cliff on 19 May 2010 12:13 On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:01:13 -0700 (PDT), cncmillgil <milgil(a)cin.net> wrote: >Industrial Engineers usually come up with the concept design for a >product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_engineering [ ..... Industrial Engineering (often now supplemented as "Industrial & Systems Engineering" or "Industrial & Operations Engineering") is a branch of engineering dealing with optimizing complex processes or systems. It is concerned with the development, improvement, implementation and evaluation of integrated systems of people, money, knowledge, information, equipment, energy, materials and/or processes ..... ]
From: Cliff on 19 May 2010 12:16 On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:01:13 -0700 (PDT), cncmillgil <milgil(a)cin.net> wrote: >The look, shape "feel" of the part with direction from the >all mighty "Marketing people". You should see what anautomotive engine cover might look like as esigned/sketched bythe "stylist" in charge ... then compare with what will actually fit under the hood over the engine & it's bits <G>. Without excessivly denting the (we got it closed, eight?) hood if you rev the engine ... -- Cliff
From: Cliff on 19 May 2010 12:17 On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:01:13 -0700 (PDT), cncmillgil <milgil(a)cin.net> wrote: >Most all solid modelers are "napkin sketchers" > Paint type programs are ok just to convey idea's but eventually it >should go to a CAD system. So why not skip that time used in Paint >Brush or Paint Shop Pro & go right to CAD modeling? What runs on the "designer"s" Apple? -- Cliff
From: Existential Angst on 19 May 2010 15:00 "Cliff" <Clhuprichguesswhat(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message news:2038v5da6mofenbtl6d5upmgedb9fts042(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:12:38 -0400, "Existential Angst" > <UNfitcat(a)UNoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"Cliff" <Clhuprichguesswhat(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message >>news:rq05v55kscqsferg90oqblmif5apmirhcg(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins <kb1dal(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On May 17, 1:26 pm, "Existential Angst" <UNfit...(a)UNoptonline.net> >>>>wrote: >>>>> "Jim Wilkins" <kb1...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> On May 17, 12:41 pm, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: >>>>> > Existential Angst wrote: >>>>> > > ... >>>>> > > Ito of the actual function/design of mechanical parts, has anyone >>>>> > > actually >>>>> > > solved a "design problem" using CAD? >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method >>>>> >>>>> Funny, how calculus (the integral) is in fact the result of FEM, in >>>>> the >>>>> limit as x --> 0, but done analytically (power rules and all that). >>>>> FEM >>>>> is >>>>> kinda like calculus in reverse, when analytic solutions are not >>>>> possible. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt6Q_pVxwl0 >>>>> >>>>> Nice. But I would distinguish CAD from this type of analysis/animation >>>>> program. >>>>> -- >>>>> EA >>>>> >>>>> jsw >>>> >>>>Take that sample truss and adjust the element dimensions until all >>>>areas are the same color under load. >>> >>> Why not just solve a fairly simple problem in Mechanics ? >> >>Because "redundancies" in structural mechanics render a simple looking >>problem not so simple, in fact unsolvable analytically (at least with >>traditional analytic methods), thus requiring numeric methods. Ergo the >>finite element analysis et al in that wiki link. > > The statemnt was until all areas are the same color under load" > which implies similar stresses. > What safety factors to use? > Which failure modes to account for? > As far as the specific issue goes it's still just simple Mechanics > IIRC & AFAIK. > Slide-rule stuff <g>. Except it isn't. Once you introduce redundancies, it's not that Newton's laws no longer apply, it's that it's no long clear on what to apply them and when. One of the first projects in a structural mechanics course I took was exactly this, a very simple model of two poles with a cross brace, subjected to some torsion. Done with Hollerith cards... goodgawd... Don't recall the exact how's and why's, but the bottom line was that that simple model could not be solved analytically. Ergo the iteration/numerical analysis. Other "simple" problems have either very complicated solutions the make numerical analysis more efficacious, or solutions with unsolvable (non-integratable) functions, like elliptic integrals. The three-body problem is one example. Heat conduction and fluid mechanics problems other broad classes of problems that rarely have analytic solutions, even though they are glibly described by div, grad, curl and all that (the actual title of an iconic advanced calculus book by Schey). Some people *think* their solutions are analytical, not realizing that the tables they are looking up answers in are the result of numerical analysis, tabulated visavis initial and boundary conditions. Other tables will be tabulations of analytical results, so there's no way to really tell, unless you know the "infrastructure" of the problem. Redundancies in structural mechanics are apparently similar. Funny, trig functions are a kind of hybrid. Even tho they are expressed in an elegant shorthand, ultimately they are ground out by N number of terms of an infinite series, terminated according to one's need for precision. Ditto e, pi, etc. So even some theoretical type stuff winds up being numerical, to some degree. What a messy universe.... -- EA > -- > Cliff
From: cavelamb on 19 May 2010 17:00
http://www.amazon.com/Structures-Things-Dont-Fall-Down/dp/0306812835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274302771&sr=1-1 |