Product and Mechanical Engineering Blog

Locking Fire Hydrant Design Patent

November 26, 2018 by Adept Engineering Leave a Comment

The Sigelock Spartan hydrant, invented by George Sigelakis and Engineered by Adept, Inc. founder and lead engineer Matthew Hayduk has been granted its seventh patent for Locking Fire Hydrant Design. On September 4, 2018, the U.S. Patent Office issued U.S. Patent No. 10066373 to the Sigelakis team.

The idea began with Sigelakis, then a New York City fire fighter, who knew firsthand the poor condition of fire hydrants across the country. Technology for the life-saving devices hadn’t changed in a century. Worse, they were prone to leaking, which could lead to weather-related damage as the leaks freeze and thaw in winter. Fire hydrants are also illegally opened in the summer to provide cooling water on hot days, which can damage them, reduce available water pressure, as well as waste thousands of gallons of water. It’s far too common for firefighters to arrive at a site and struggle to find a working fire hydrant due to age-related failures, routine and weather-related damage or vandalism.

Knowing all of the problems common to fire hydrants, Sigelakis came to Adept where Matthew Hayduk engineered a fire hydrant for the 21^st century.

The Sigelock Spartan hydrant is tamper-proof, eliminating wasted water and the damage caused when hydrants are illegally accessed. A special cam accuated wrech opens the new hydrants, applying the required 3000 lb. opening force.

More importantly, Hayduk revolutionized fire hydrant design from the inside out. Through the incorporation of a tamper proof locking mechanism with integral side cap locks. Combined he created a new and unique shape developed through Sigelakis’s love of sculpture.

Unlike conventional fire hydrants, which are made of cast iron that rusts easily, Hayduk created the Sigelock from stainless steel, ductile iron and a special rust resistant coating for improved durability. The Sigelock requires such little maintenance that could last up to two centuries without repair. Sigelock Spartan hydrants installed in Long Beach, NY, are ready to withstand Hurricanes after the devastation brought by Superstorm Sandy whereas the city’s conventional fire hydrants were damaged by the severe saltwater flooding.

Revolutionary design is a hallmark of Adept’s work. The Sigelock Spartan hydrant is a perfect example of how a common item can be improved by applying creative thinking with solid engineering experience.

3D Printer Unboxing: Adept Takes Delivery of the Raise3D N2+

September 29, 2017 by Adept Engineering Leave a Comment

Adept had a bit of a false start with its previous 3D printer selection. After 6 months of frustration and disappointment, they decided to hit the reset button, do some extensive research with blog and forum communication…and chose the Raise 3D N2+

We will wait a bit before providing a full review (this time). But for now, let’s unbox and set up the Raise3D N2+!

We’ve heard very good things and are looking forward to a very positive experience…

Follow our progress on Instagram @adeptinc , Facebook adeptengineering or Twitter @adepteng

Review of the Leapfrog Bolt 3D Printer

August 10, 2017 by Adept Engineering Leave a Comment

Leapfrog Bolt Review

Adept has brought 3D Fused Filament Fabrication, (FFF) in-house and reviews the new Leapfrog BOLT 3D Printer.

The Additive Manufacturing sector is expanding rapidly. It would be difficult to find an industry not utilizing and considering how additive manufacturing could enter into their business model. Engineers have been using these technologies for decades, although they were reserved to the elite and advanced. Many of these technologies still are, especially when it comes to printing in metal. However, printing in plastic, especially by Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) has become quite affordable.

For years Adept had been considered bringing Additive Manufacturing in-house, but has resisted due to high cost, high maintenance, and poor reliability. Outsourcing these services had always suited our needs. With a greater and greater demand for prototypes, along with tighter schedules, it became an imperative to bring 3D printing in house.

Upon review of many of the available 3D printers on the market today, Adept chose the Leapfrog Bolt. What attracted Adept to the Leapfrog Bolt was several unique characteristics the Bolt offers that other printers presently on the market did not offer. Larger print volumes are becoming fairly standard, which the Bolt offers at 13 in x 12.6 in x 8.1 in, this was attractive, but really attracted us to the Bolt were the dual “independent” nozzles! There are also many printers on the market with dual print heads but what makes the Bolt unique is that their print heads are mounted on the same x axis although they have separate motors. What this feature permits is Synchronized printing, where the second print head prints an identical copy as the first. And, mirror printing, where the second print head prints a mirrored copy of the first!

The jury is still out regarding the capabilities and reliability of the Leapfrog Bolt, but initial impressions are favorable. Watch the video to learn more. Or contact Adept directly and we’ll be happy to share our experiences.

The Future of Engineering and 3D Printing

July 24, 2017 by Adept Engineering Leave a Comment

At the risk of wearing out a phrase; “It’s a great time to be an Engineer!” Not only an Engineer but any person that is involved or interested in innovation in science and technology. I believe that we are in a perpetual state of revolution of technology. No matter what field of science and technology you choose to explore or contribute, the level of innovation is nothing short of astounding.

The Future of 3D Printing

One area of personal interest and that has received main stream attention is 3D printing. Recently I was asked, “what do you believe lies in the future of 3D printing?.” It was at that moment that I thought my mind would explode. I had no idea in which direction to lead the discussion. At first, I thought it important to clarify what we were speaking about. The term 3D printing has been adopted by the main stream due to its ease of understanding and its direct analogy. With the onslaught of availability and the technology in probably its simplest form, Fused Filament Fabrication or FFF, which has brought about a basic understanding and acceptance of “3D printing”. Where in actuality the broader term we should refer to is Additive Manu facture. Within the Additive Manufacture world, the future is bright and moving at light speed. There is no shortage of articles and references to the huge variety of places this technology is being applied. As soon as you research and list them, there are ten more. It’s fair to say that advances range from the Nano scale to Mega scale and I’d be hard pressed to mention a science that is not studying and applying additive manufacture to their arsenal of tools.

The Rapid Expansion of Computers into Engineering

Back to the initial question, “what is the future of Additive Manufacturing?”As with most questions regarding the future, they are often best answered by comparing them with the past. And with this subject, that past is not so long ago. So, I’ve decided to draw from my own personal experience. Despite still being 17 at heart, my own experience of over a half a century provides me some perspective. Even an adaptation of Moore’s Law, wouldn’t be appropriate because Additive Manufacture far exceeds that. I remember a time not so long ago entering a grand hall filled as far as the eyes could see with desks and drawing boards. Masters of Design and Engineering slouched over large drawings of objects most of us could not identify. It was the year 1983 and we found ourselves in the thick of an Aerospace Engineering company. A company that Engineered and built machines that beat mother-nature into submission, we’re speaking about Helicopters, but that’s not the point. The point being there were no computers, zero, zilch, nada. However, with the introduction of Windows about a year or so later my Engineering group received its’ first desktop computer, some 2 or 386 something or other. Located at the center of our 50 person Engineering group, where we all were allowed to take turns performing various tasks. Being awed by programs like Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. Personal Computers had arrived. This computer had not replaced the mainframe, where real computing power resided. However, with the arrival of the PC, so did the buzz that someday this sea of drawing boards that lay before us would disappear and be replaced by PCs. Of course, it’s 1985 so we all chuckled and thought what sorcery are you preaching? Little did we realize that inside of 5 years it would happen, practically all drawing boards were gone. Programs like AutoCAD and CADRA permitted us to produce drawings electronically, no more electric erasers, eraser shields or templates. Although, all of this had to be performed in special environmentally controlled labs where these wondrous machines could survive. I remember being granted access to a special computer room beyond there, where there were a select group of Engineers staring at unique large flickering displays where they were creating 3D models on the computer, what?! Mind you it’s not even 1990. So inside of 5 years drawing boards are out and computers are in. Fast forward another 5 years we’re now out of the environmentally controlled rooms and designing in 3D on RISC workstations. Each Engineer at their own personal workstation Engineering and Designing in 3D at their desk. And with this came 3D files and all the wonders that came with them. We now had seamless communication with other computer programs and systems, directly using what we had created. Whether that be for Rendering, Finite Element Analysis, Stereolithography (SLA) or almost anything really. It was the early 1990’s when we were introduced to Stereolithography. I can remember having a ¼ scale SLA model made of a composite transmission housing I was working on, management was so elated with it that they wanted several more which we then made a dozen urethane castings. However, this technology in the early 90’s, was only available to very large, very well-funded Engineering firms. Push forward only about 3-4 years and a new player had emerged, DEC Alpha, an RISC (reduced instruction set computer) based PC running Windows NT, due to its 64-bit architecture capable of running the sophisticated 3D modeling software, and at a price mortals could afford, and so the march continues.

The Latest in Additive Manufacturing

Of course, things didn’t stop there, however, the next 10 to 15 years were filled with Moore’s Law and a lot of software and hardware evolution. Most of us are familiar with computer power exceedingly getting more powerful, smaller and affordable. And now the software is running on affordable laptops and heading towards the cloud! Here we are 12 years later and you can have your personal SLA machine on your desk for under $3500, Whaaaat?. And if that’s outside your budget, how about a proven, reliable FFF printer for well under $1,000. The Additive Manufacture industry is reflecting the computer and software industry, while just last month a Metal Additive Manufacture machine was released by Desktop Metal, priced at $120,000, which may sound pricey but in a field where other competitors are over $1M you better believe this group of MIT professors are making noise, so much noise they have recently secured $115M in investor funding…..Like I said “light speed”.

So, in a brief half century of time, we’ve gone from paper and pencil to fully computerized “Art to Part” (remember that cliché). And let’s remember in 1985 the World Wide Web did not exist, but that’s an entirely different subject for another day….So, let’s set 2014 as a date where Additive Manufacture has gone mainstream, coupled with the onset of the internet and the explosion in the adaptation of Additive Manufacturing, taking the square root of 50…, in 7 years and a couple months, Additive Manufacture will be a common tool in every Developers quiver.

Sorcery you say, I don’t think so…

George and the Forest

May 24, 2016 by Adept Engineering Leave a Comment

Previously I’ve been discussing the engineering process and prototyping… important subjects… dry… but hey, it’s engineering. Not so dry for those of us that live it.

I’d like to thank everyone who has appreciated and contributed to follow-up, discussion and praise. However, I’m going to shift gears and share with you an anecdotal experience that I believe taught me a very important Engineering lesson.

As many of you know, I worked for a major aircraft manufacturer for many years and truly believe that my experiences there made me the engineer I am today. I have many fond memories of those experiences.

There was one particular project that granted me a baseline opportunity to learn. I was only 5 or 6 years out of the University, working with a group that was retrofitting a research aircraft for a new mission. The retrofit was an entire overhaul and more. I studied what was changing and the more I understood what was being saved the more I began to wonder why not design a new aircraft. Although in actuality the majority of the airframe structure was being recycled, which added an additional challenge, the box was already defined (dam!), so whatever we did we had to fit inside it. And, we all know the 10 pounds joke…

The Aircraft was a helicopter that was specifically developed to test new main rotor configurations. And this is what we were preparing to do. Test a wild new rotor whose science was decades old, but now were there manufacture methods capable of bringing it to reality. The uniqueness of this rotor was that it would fly as a typical helicopter with a rotating main rotor, BUT would be able to STOP “during” fight and transition the aircraft to fixed wing flight. Really, for real, that’s incredible and we have to make it happen?! Have I mentioned that it is and was a great time to be an engineer!

As you might expect, as a young engineer I was wide eyed and very excited to be working on such a unique and revolutionary project. During this project, I was given several increasing responsibilities. It was probably the first time I was tasked with designing a total system from the ground up. That system was… a BRAKE? No ordinary brake. But a brake that would be capable of stopping a massive rotor (during flight, never a good idea for a helicopter). Exactly, that’s all, just stop it, re-position it and lock it, while the aircraft…did God know’s what… Great! sign me up! However, that’s not what I wanted to tell you about. The day I wanted to tell you about was much earlier, during the preliminary development of this aircraft.

I owe a great deal of gratitude to the many mentors at this company. But one particular mentor on this project, and I remember him well, we’ll call him George. George was quite a character, a middle-aged man with gray hair, a wardrobe that was usually wrinkled, stained and from a decade lost in time. One of his most distinguishing characteristics was that he always carried a pipe, yes the tobacco type. Remember we’re talking quite a long time ago, when smoking was permitted “everywhere” (oh my! how did we all survive?). So, George loved his pipe and was rarely seen without it. As a matter of fact, he had a peculiar callous in the middle of his left hand, a callous caused from clapping the spent tobacco from his pipe. George also had thick callouses on both elbows from long hours, staring/glaring/theorizing at engineering prints on drawing boards.

Anyway, I was allowed to work alongside George for several years and one day he asked me to gather a bunch of binders from his desk and help him carry them to a meeting. We traveled through several long halls then I began to notice, we were heading towards the senior management offices of the engineering building. We then entered the conference room just outside the Vice President of Engineering’s office, awesome, this is a place I’ve never been. Assembling were many heads of departments and managers. My excitement was building but I understood I was only helping George carry his binders to the meeting. To my astonishment, he asked me to stay. Well, this was a meeting of the many great minds of the company; to present, discuss, argue and plan a new aircraft. (holy &%$#! Batman!) It went on for hours, each group describing their particular subsystem of the aircraft, it’s basic configuration and overall requirements. There were view-graphs after view-graphs (for you younger engineers, view-graphs were actual physical plastic slides placed on a light projector for all to view, just like PowerPoint, but with no computer, and much harder to prepare), I watched and listened intently as the Vice President orchestrated the meeting listening and learning about this new aircraft’s evolution towards reality.

I was in awe of the complexity and thoroughness of each system and groups presenting them. From structural to electrical, to hydraulic, to propulsion, to avionics, to aerodynamics, you get the picture… After hours of this, the meeting was coming to a close and everyone was feeling great about how everything was coming together, many side conversations had begun in all corners of the conference room, the technical banter with the total amount of engineering horsepower in this room was inspiring. Then it happened!

While everyone was beginning to sing kumbaya, you could see George quietly thinking to himself and then he raised his hand, sort of like a fourth grader in math class. While the majority of the room ignored George, the Vice President responded to George and quickly brought the roar of the room to silence….The VP said, “yes George, what is it?”. George cupped his pipe similar to Sherlock Holmes and preceded to address each group in the room, repeating each group’s system power requirements. You see each system of the aircraft requires power, this power can only come from one place, the jet engines. While George reiterated each system’s power requirements (from memory) he recited the tally…when he finished going around the entire room (ignoring the rolling eyes…) he said, “well gentlemen that adds up to 13,840 horsepower and our engines only put out 12,000 horsepower!”. The room erupted, now the kumbaya grins turning to frowns, many began checking George’s math as they shuffled through view-graphs and binders…, it was true, so it was back to the drawing boards with the mandate to reduce their power requirements by 7-10%.

So the lesson is obvious and everyone has heard it, don’t forget to see the forest through the trees. Here with all the complexities of a State of the Art aircraft and Engineering talent second to few, it was all turned on its head by ADDITION. No project is too complicated or too far along, to return to the basics and to the original specification. This was a great day for this project, if it weren’t for George, 1000’s of Engineering hours would have been spent before realizing the obvious. Thanks, George, for everything.

To Prototype or not to Prototype?

May 2, 2016 by Adept Engineering Leave a Comment

Previously we spoke about 3D printers, their promise or lack thereof! I will admit I have been a bit cynical of their reliability, accuracy and actual usefulness. There is absolutely no doubt that 3D printers are here to stay and promise great things for our future. Sadly, for most of us, it still remains in the future. Despite the fact that Adept designs 100’s of parts per month we don’t own a 3D printer and don’t expect to purchase one anytime soon. That’s not to say we don’t utilize rapid manufacturing a great deal. However, by not bringing a single technology in house we are not bound or tempted to fit our process into the single technology we own. Prototyping companies put out a horde of advertising displaying complex assemblies that have been 3D printed in order to entice us towards their machines and services, but beware, (we’ll talk about that a little later). I don’t want to necessarily talk about 3D printers but more about prototyping as a whole. Specifically about when to prototype and when not to prototype, a sort of Shakespearean… “to Prototype or not to Prototype”.

After 30 years in Engineering and having lived the age of computerization within the engineering community, I remain awed by the capabilities and tools at our disposal. But like most facets of today’s technology, just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. What I’m referring to is the onslaught of decision making surrounding when and how to prototype. I’m not only addressing; Poly-jet, Stereo-lithography, ID Light, Laser sintering, Fused Deposition Modeling and Direct metal laser sintering, (I’m sure I may have missed a few), but one method that seems to have taken a back seat when discussing methods of prototyping. All these processes rely on the primary phase which they depend, 3D modeling. Even this is becoming easier, where there are freeware and online programs that help you create your ideas in 3D compatible formats enabling fabrication by one of these processes. However 3D modeling in of itself is a prototype. Which brings be back to the original question, when to prototype? Well, if you’ve already built a 3d model you already have.

Prototyping is a method of simulating an end result. In some instances these methods of prototyping are becoming methods of manufacture. As I wrote earlier about the GE

LEAP fuel nozzle being manufactured by Metal Laser Melting. Where a fuel nozzle of 17 parts was manufactured as a single assembled component or perhaps Solid Concepts fully functional 1911 semiautomatic pistol. I expect in our lifetime these methods of manufacture will become mainstream. But, as Solid Concepts points out, the fabrication of the pistol required experts using state-of-the-art equipment to produce it, not to mention countless man hours. So, the methods that are available to you and I will produce similar items, however they are still crude, inaccurate and unreliable. Simulation is a large part of Engineering, as is Prototyping. In essence all computer model simulations are prototypes. Prototypes that we don’t have to fabricate, can be easily modified, are incredibly accurate (often too accurate!) and can be destroyed repeatedly!

Computer models and simulations provide a perspective worth 100’s of prototypes. I remember hearing decades ago how Detroit used to make 100’s of prototypes of an automobile and now (20 years ago) they make 6. I expect that number has actually risen while the methods of engineering and manufacture have evolved and our tools are being used more effectively, efficiently and ingeniously put to use.

Prototype Development — Detailed Assembly

Computer simulations have come as far if not farther than rapid or additive manufacturing. An issue I take notice with, is the fact that rapid manufacturing has stolen the term rapid prototyping, because the fabrication process is only one piece of the puzzle and it happens to be a very costly one! Not to say that engineering hours are cheap, so there lies the quagmire! The cost to engineer and prototype is at the core of engineering decision making process. Assembling the correct engineering plan for the given project needs to be closely monitored and tailored to the projects near and long term objectives . Computer engineering/designing/modeling is at the forefront of the overall process. But the computer modeling element is not a one size fits all objective!? Because the rapid manufacture technologies available to the average machine or product developer are limited, your “prototyping” dollars must be carefully assessed and applied.

Every simulation or prototype has it’s objective and must be designed for that objective. Components slated for plastic injection molding are perhaps the simplest because the additive manufacture processes offer components in an array of materials that closely approximate real materials and the process yields similar tolerances. And, if these parts are structural, provided you select the correct material, process and align the grain direction appropriately you can yield a good simulated part. But remember you will have only one configuration to evaluate and to reevaluate you’ll have to purchase another prototype. If you require components of greater strength or tighter tolerances then it often pays to work your computer simulations further because your methods of rapid manufacture get more costly and time consumin
g. Clearly we can’t cover even a small cross section of considerations when it comes to when and how to prototype. But before you prototype be sure to ask your designer or engineer; “what is the objective of this prototype?”, “what will this prototype tell us, that we don’t already know?” and “how will this prototype move us closer and faster to our final objective, that can’t be achieve other ways?”.

Deciding when to prototype and when not, is a complex decision. Like most engineering decisions there are a host of considerations. Sometimes vested interest just have to see and touch what is being done. However first and foremost listen to your engineer, no matter how glassy eyed you may get as you listen to the decision making process, it is a process of trade-offs, filled with reason and rationale. And as you evaluate which simulations to perform and which to forego be sure to ask, what the risk are if we go with intuition, do we perform the analysis and to what level do we need to analyze. But always remember it’s expensive to build and cheap to modify computer models.

Leapfrog Bolt Review

The Future of 3D Printing

The Rapid Expansion of Computers into Engineering

The Latest in Additive Manufacturing

Footer