engineering method

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.

The Monkey Wrench: A Lesson in Developing Specifications

November 12, 2014 by Adept Engineering 1 Comment

If you’ve been actively following this blog, you’ve read about the importance of developing a sound idea. The development of an idea begins in the form of a compilation of requirements, expectations and overall purpose of your product or device. An engineer works through this compilation to prepare a methodical approach focused on realizing a design’s creation.

The engineer’s first step is to prepare a specification, i.e. a series of requirements which ultimately become the backbone, or in some cases, the achilles heal of the design. All specification entries in part and as a whole must pass a sanity check.

This post tells the tale of the monkey wrench, a lesson in developing specification requirements.

Long ago (in a galaxy far, far, away…) in 1985, I was a junior engineer who experienced a very important lesson in specification development. Cutting my engineering teeth at Sikorsky Aircraft was filled with lessons. After a few years filled with drawing revisions and other support functions, I was placed on a new design project. It entailed the retrofit of an existing aircraft with a new rotor design, a seemingly straight forward effort. The project was “top secret” and required the entire team to perform work in a secret facility with no windows and double-cipher locked doors – the whole environment placed me in what felt like something out a science fiction novel or at least a Sean Penn movie.

Our engineering manager, let’s call him “George”, began his engineering career designing typewriters. Being young and naïve, it evaded me as to how a typewriter engineer could posses the skills needed to design helicopter transmissions. For this story, George fills the role of the monkey wrench, metaphorically speaking of course. Typically unkempt with part of his lunch heavily crusted on his tie, George exhibited the attributes of a character enamored with engineering. While he eagerly noodled about his day, the project team smoked their ciggies busily designing on drawing boards with their PC’s chugging along in DOS or maybe a mainframe.

Early on in this aircraft’s design phase, I accompanied George to a top-level aircraft configuration meeting. We entered a large windowless boardroom with a view-graph machine located at the head of the table which seated two dozen or so engineers, project managers and company executives. Outside in the hall, several people took in a final drag of their smoldering cigarettes prior to entering the crowded room. It was a time when people smoked wherever and whenever they wanted; thankfully, the space had no windows and smoking wasn’t allowed in the boardroom. But I digress.

Little did I know, I was about to gain an unforgettable lesson. As a young engineer, I had no real role at this meeting other than to observe and manage George’s binders and view-graphs. The meeting went on for hours, as I enthusiastically followed, each engineering discipline went through their portion of the retrofit aircraft’s design conception. The project manager seemed to orchestrate the engineering teams like a seasoned conductor. Beraged by hundreds of view graphs and collaborative discussions, I was in awe. Finally, as the meeting was about to come to a close the vice president of engineering asked if there were any questions? There was a deafening silence, although I could see there was something on George’s mind. Everyone began to reassemble their binders, view-graphs and notes. The mode went from serious to relaxed with laughter and excitment. While everyone was patting each other on the back, George subtly raised his hand like he was in fourth grade. From the front of the boardroom the vice president called upon George. Most people were ignoring what was about to happen next.

The vice president raised his voice and asked for everyone to settle down. Then he patiently asked George to share his question with the entire team. George confidently looked around the table and addressed each discipline head personally. He proceeded to question each sub-system’s power requirements. Each discipline head agreed, with some eye rolls. George remembered each systems’ (there were many) power requirements perfectly. Adding to the drama, George whipped out his handy dandy , pipe ash ridden, TI30 calculator and made a quick calculation. Then he says calmly, “Gentlemen, we don’t have enough power on the aircraft.” The room erupted in irritation and disbelief. Sure enough, the crowd’s rowdiness came to an immediate hault – the team had to get back to the drawing board and reduce their power requirements in order to get the aircraft off the ground.

I was floored, this tremendous engineering effort filled with supplicated analysis and planning, was brought to its’ knees with one simple calculation, which saw the forest through the trees. While this was the beginning of what proved to be a large, sophisticated engineering helicopter design project, this meeting left a lasting impression on the authoring and attention needed to develop the specification.

Working on a modern day helicopter is an engineer’s dream. Most engineering projects don’t come close to the complexities typically seen in a helicopter. Which brings to mind a favorite helicopter adage, “Airplanes fly while helicopters beat the air into submission!” and that submission doesn’t come along easily. However, this doesn’t mean that other engineering projects possess details of any less importance. A compilation of design requirements placed together and reviewed, while passing continuous sanity checks can not be overstated. As engineers we love the details, but never forget to continually check on the forest and never ignore the guy with the monkey wrench!

You have a wild idea. Will it actually work?

September 24, 2014 by Adept Engineering 1 Comment

As an engineer, I’ve been involved with my share of wild ideas, visions and desires. I’ve listened to and entertained, against my better judgment, some many of a wild idea. Some ideas I regret not to have taken more seriously, several I was retained to prove or disprove their validity, and many that developed into some really exciting devices. Along the way it became evident that there were some basic and necessary guidelines, a few of the key ones were: don’t be too quick to judge, focus on the details and always keep the goals in sight.

In this post, we revisit the engineering process. In an earlier post I was a bit premature launching immediately into physical prototypes. As designers and engineers we well know that building a prototype has a powerful lure – everyone wants to witness their visions and ideas enter reality. However, a poorly executed prototype does only one thing, sends you back to the drawing board. Prototypes have one basic purpose, risk reduction. Previously discussed in an earlier post was the specification, but for now, let’s set that topic aside. Before the specification, there must be a sound idea and vision in which the engineers can apply their wares. The idea needs to be sound and tirelessly driven with a clear understanding of the desired end result.

WildIdea-300x198 — What makes a sound idea?

What makes a sound idea? There are a dozen adjectives that immediately come to mind. But foremost, it must satisfy a need and offer a perceived value. Whether the need is imaginary or real, the need must be well defined and understood. Understanding and defining the need is your charter, how to satisfy and develop it, is not. You must resist the temptation to begin to conceptualize a solution, that, although you may think this may help clarify your thinking, it will do nothing more then defer you from your primary charter. It is essential to focus on the “why”, “where” and “what for”, not the “how to” — leave this up to the engineer.

I can’t begin to tell you the countless number of concepts and prototypes that have been brought to Adept with the simple request to “make it work”. Conversations often begin with, “we have a design that is 90% complete, but we need some engineering help to…blah, blah, blah…..(make it work!)”. Thankfully, they realized they needed engineering help. Although, when it comes to new designs, making it work must begin from the ground up. It must be grounded in solid engineering principles targeted at meeting each and every; why, where and what for. My intention is not to insult anyone, to be honest, several of the concepts and prototypes I’ve been brought were well conceived and cleverly constructed. But generally lacked the necessary attention to detail and adherence to engineering principles.

By now, you’ve put two and two together and realized where this post is leading us. If an idea is well understood and established the next step is a specification. The specification is merely a document that defines:

What is available?
Where will your idea operate?
Who or what will operate your idea?
What must the end result be?

This holds true for devices, products and processes. A colleague of mine once put it quite clearly, “without a specification you (the engineer) will never know when you are done.” I’ve gotten a lot of mileage from that statement. Not only does the specification provide a clear delineation of the need to be satisfied or problem to be solved, it also serves as a reminder of the requirements and target, so they are not forgotten. The specification does not need to be complicated or cast in stone and can be in the form of a working document. If you are not an engineer, it can merely be a list of requirements and subjective wants. IT is part of an engineers job to take that list and compile is into the necessary technical guidelines that will define your vision.

success — Engineering ideas requires commitment !

Throughout the engineering process, it becomes evident requirements may oppose one and other and/or place an excessive burden on the overall design which may be damn near impossible…and the engineer’s nemesis! Trade-offs must be made in order to find the ideal balance of performance, cost and risk. These trade offs will lead to decisions made early on in the process while the concept and specification are being fine-tuned. These decisions will either make or break a project. They are not to be taken lightly or made in haste. Again, keeping the end-game can not be mentioned enough. But a well formulated idea (from a wild idea) with a proper specification will lead you to that result. Obviously, further discussion is required about this extremely important point in the design process and will be left to later blogs, stay tuned.

Tools That Transform Concepts into a Physical Prototype

June 12, 2014 by Adept Engineering 7 Comments

“With great power comes great responsibility.” I’ve always expected a bit more from this quote. If Peter Parker is who claims it, so be it. Don’t get me wrong, I love Spiderman movies. What’s not to like about a good guy winning and getting the girl. Unfortunately, in the world of engineering, we are not always fortunate to have the same fate. We are given great power and responsibility, but without the girl (or guy, let’s stay on theme…Spiderman and all). The power to engineer and develop in the virtual world is fantastic and has granted us unimaginable vision and responsibility.

I remember when, here we go again, we worked with ink pens, eraser shields and imagination. The days of ink pens and eraser shields are gone; however, our imaginations are alive, well and running wild. In the late eighties, I recall discussing and arguing how much time (aka, money) 3D CAD was going to save. After all, if the exorbitant amount of money on hardware, software and support were to be justified, then there must be a tangible metric to substantiate the risk. That was the challenge. How do you calculate the reduced risk of greater insight with a bigger and better toolbox? I wasn’t the most popular guy in the room in those days because while everyone insisted that there would be time savings, I suggested the

The image above is an automated wake board towrope retriever prototype.

exact opposite. Looking back on that time, if I was armed with my last 25 years of experience and the hindsight that comes along with it, I would’ve made a much better argument. In effect, the time savings (and money) does not come from any one discipline. It is generated throughout the entire process, “from art to part”. I loved this phrase, “from art to part.” Like everything else in marketing and sales, I’m sure it will make its’ comeback. The reason I love this phrase is because it emphasizes the fact that engineers are artists.

As we look at the whole process, from a clean sheet of paper (or computer screen) to a virtual prototype and on to the physical prototype, the engineer has a quiver of tools at their disposal. Or, do they? We’re all familiar with the cliché, “the right tool for the job.” Like most clichés, they tend to point out the obvious. The fact of the matter is we don’t always have or can afford the right tool. And, there lies the quagmire, an extremely important decision of when and how to use these tools. The term tool is a very broad and involved topic for engineers. Not only are there an enormous number of tools, the methods in which we use them expand our capabilities, exponentially.

The image above is a Boeing 737 PSU Reading Light design utilizing the latest in LED technology.

Working for companies like Boeing, Sikorsky or NASA, these decisions are much simpler, (Friends, please don’t shoot me and hear me out). Not only are your company pockets deep, you also possess the responsibility of engineering systems for which human life is reliant, therefore giving you, the engineer, a tremendous amount of clout. However, for the other 90% of the engineering community (don’t quote me on that), we don’t have such clout, yet the responsibility is still very real and present. We work within much more modest budgets and ridiculously rapid schedules to create something from nothing, requiring creativity not only in our designs but in our engineering methods in which we bring them to fruition.

Creating something from nothing is what engineering is all about. Generating the physical prototype from virtual concept is both our friend and our foe. To create or not to create that is the question! Sorry had to do it… This brings me back to the process, the process of creating with powerful tools. These tools enhance our ability to create in a virtual world that is quite wonderful, yet empty. In the end, an engineer creates the physical prototype. This is the question I look to discuss and answer…When and how do you take a virtual concept to physical prototype? How do you resist the lures of remaining virtual or going physical? More to come soon!

Want to engineer your idea? It might not be easy.

April 8, 2014 by Adept Engineering Leave a Comment

Let’s just say you want to build a new machine or develop a new product. Can’t you just dive in and do it?

The simple answer is “no.” You need an Engineer.

Adept is proud to present If Engineering Was Easy… a blog with an editorial focus on innovation in mechanical engineering, industrial design, and electrical engineering consulting. Written for, by, and about engaged and innovative engineers, If Engineering Was Easy… aims to inspire readers to strike up engineering related conversations discuss and share methodologies as they pertain to a machine and product conception and development.

For decades the discussion has been about concurrent engineering and a great deal has changed, yet much hasn’t. From the consultant’s perspective, it is an imperative requirement to utilize concurrent design techniques, not only internally but externally as well. Keeping mechanical, electrical engineers, and industrial designers all on the same page is an absolute necessity in order to provide effective and efficient solutions for our clients.

Mechanical Engineering: We will explore mechanical engineer methods. If it needs to be moved, held, enclosed, consume or produce energy this is what needs to happen. Content will focus on methods and projects that are changing the way people live or will interface with life for the next century.

Industrial Design: We’ll explore the intersection of the idea and reality. When we should develop from the inside out or from the outside in. Philosophies and opinions will be front and center in this discussion, alongside great engineers speaking their minds in blog posts and comments, with plenty of eye candy.

Electrical Engineer: Our invisible friends, computing and initiating our commands, distributing and controlling our power… We will explore various electrical engineering methods and capabilities. Content will focus on philosophies, concepts and methods, underlying some of the most innovative machines and products, and how to incorporate this very rapidly growing field into our creations of today.

Elements of the Design Process: We will discuss how these three disciplines can work better together throughout the design and engineering process.

The goal is to provide you, the reader, with engineering discussion and knowledge in action! Our collection of posts will prove to be the ultimate resource for revolutionizing the engineering process of new machines and products.

engineering method

Footer