Editorial Archives - Page 3 of 5

“Mommy, what’s a keyboard?”

Even with the explosion of the QWERTY keyboard being plastered on to almost every type of electronic device these days, I’m going to go out on a limb here-and-now to declare that the QWERTY keyboard will be obsolete within my lifetime. This prediction is not limited to the keyboard device I’m using to type this article. I’m referring to any type of letter based data input that takes the form of QWERTY. The beginning of the end for QWERTY is not the Dvorak keyboard. Nor is it speak [mis]recognition technology. In my view, the signal of the end is technology such as predictive text input, search assistant and other peripherals.

Predictive text input is where an author enters the first couple of letters and then is presented with a word or list of words that most likely match the author’s intent. The author keeps typing until the correct word appears, then accepts the entry. On a cell phone number pad, each number represents 3 or 4 letters. Predictive text input can quickly find the desired word, often with the push of only a couple of numbers. In addition, more sophisticated systems will learn which words are most commonly used by the author and present those as first choices to the author.

With predictive text input, a person can drastically increase their typing capabilities. I’ve seen individuals text with cell phone numeric pads faster than what is even possible on a smartphone QWERTY keyboard. In fact, I would suggest that average wpm speeds of numeric pad texters with predictive text input even exceeds that of experienced typists on traditional full size keyboard devices. That’s not hyperbole, and I’m not kidding.

Search assistant is similar to predictive text input, except a little more sophisticated and low key. Competing peripherals have a lot more buttons than they used to. Function keys are slowing being replaced by clicks on buttons on devices such as the mouse.

All combined, the QWERTY keyboard’s current Golden Age will be over soon enough.

Plastic failure causes (brief overview)

There are many causes for failure in plastic parts. These can cause a variety of problems too. Here are some common root causes:

part was originally designed to be made from metal.
part may have design flaws due to stress concentrations and creep.
chemical interactions; in fact, even when a plastic may not be affected by a chemical under low stress, it may be susceptible in higher stress scenarios (environmental stress cracking or ESC).
poor decisions when utilizing material substitution and additives.
manufacturing process, or lack of control thereof.

With all of these common causes for the failure of plastic parts, one might wonder how does one maneuver the design and process mine field. It is important to traverse these issues since a failure in plastic parts can cause lose of valuable time, materials, customers, and can even lead to litigation. One important tool a company can use to combat and prevent such failure is making sure the engineering education of employees is up to the task for designing plastic parts and/or their molds. It is also important to seek out experienced processors who have the knowledge base required for successful part making. Of course, even when everything is done right, problems may still arise. This is where experience in process and design can be the difference between quickly correcting issues or getting stuck without any support.

Source: Fighting Failure in Plastics by Michael Tolinski – Plastics Engineering July/August 2009

Jeff Ray and CATIA/SolidWorks translator

Jeff Ray, CEO of SolidWorks Jeff Ray recently commented about SolidWorks/CATIA relationship in an interview with Ralph Grabowski (seemingly misquoted by Deelip Meneze in his article):

Customers are fed up with not being able to share data between Catia and SolidWorks.

Grabowski then predicts, “at some point, a translator will be delivered.” But this apparently is not a comment made by Jeff Ray himself.

Lunch with Jeff Ray In the discussion that Jeff Ray had with the bloggers at the Blogger Event in early August, there was a hint that a translator between SolidWorks and CATIA isn’t good enough. Does this mean that SolidWorks needs to be able to natively use CATIA files (and vice versa)? Is something really coming that will address this long standing issue?

Meneze, in his article commenting on the Grabowski interview, goes on to list several reasons why making a translator between SolidWorks and CATIA is doable right now. Meneze does this in the context of his statement,

Dassault Systems has made laughing stock out of SolidWorks and its customers.

This was followed up by Matt Lombard who proposed,

This is of course a business decision, not a technical decision, ratcheting customers toward Catia rather than toward SolidWorks. Just like the version incompatibility ratchet.

Well, I’m not sure these are entirely accurate statements. I’m under the impression that Dassault Systemes is aware they are losing business because their two major 3D CAD applications do not fully communicate. Some large customers (who will not be mentioned here…but there’s a clue here) have standardized with CATIA for the high level 3D CAD work, but continue to use a list of other 3D CAD applications that does not include SolidWorks. One likely reason is that SolidWorks cannot use CATIA files, where their competitors can, as Lombard rightfully points out in his article. So, Jeff Ray is right. Something has to be done to correct this issue. Thank you to Grabowski for stirring the pot.

Ya’no, if Microsoft ran their business like this, we’d still see Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect, and Netscape lining the shelves at the local computer store. Why as Dassault Systemes allowed this gaping hole in their product line to exist for so long?

SolidWorks 2010 tune-up

There’s something different about SolidWorks 2010. It’s hard to put my finger on it. It just seems to be a little …oh I don’t know… snappier or peppier. That’s strange. I mean, there are obvious improvements in such areas as user interface, reliability and predictable feature results, but there’s something else.

Well, I lie, I know exactly what is different. SolidWorks has had a tune-up. There’s a ton of really old code in SolidWorks that’s been acting like built-up sludge in an old 4-cylinder 1.0 litre engine that was stuffed into a 1969 Mustang Fastback. (I know that the analogy is wrong on so many levels, which is the point.) Some of that old code has now been cleaned up. It’s not a magical change in every area. But there is improvement on certain types of solid model features. Due to the code clean up, those features will rebuild (much) faster. This is accomplished without SpeedPak or Lightweight memory hacks, er I mean tricks, er I mean shortcuts, I mean…nevermind. SolidWorks will naturally rebuild models faster now. Finally, this is the improvement many of us have been requesting for years! We still have the advantage of SpeedPak and Lightweight, but now the actual features themselves will rebuild faster with more efficient underlying code. To realize the improved rebuilt times, each solid model must be saved as SolidWorks 201o format. (Even SolidWorks 2010 will still rebuild older files inefficiently until that are saved in the current format.)

I hope to have a list of improved features soon. One feature where I’ve seen significant improvement is Delete Face, which used to be memory intensive with long rebuild times. It now rebuilds much quicker.

Jon Hirschtick at SW Corp HQ

When Jon Hirschtick talks, his excitement is infectious. Maybe reason for this is that he is excited about what he’s talking about. At the recent visit to SolidWorks headquarters, several of us SolidWorks bloggers got to met with Jon again, but it never seems like enough time.

He talked about how he likes to keep up on what’s going on in the world. He’s always looking for new technologies that may be worked into a new feature within the SolidWorks business model (my wording).

One particular area he talked about again was that 3D modelling isn’t owned by the 3D CAD industry. It is owned by the Gaming industry. The guys in the Gaming industry are the ones working with unique motion control within huge 3D worlds. This is a point he also made at SolidWorks World 2009.

He also is trying to keep updated on hardware technologies that may be used on the side of CAD but within the CAD context. Again, he pointed to the Gaming industry and such devices as the Wii and Xbox. Jon seemed fascinated by the fact that his son rather voice talk to him via the Xbox instead of the traditional land-line or cellphone because it is easier, its better quality and more reliable. He also mentioned that “kids” do not voice talk much on their cellphones. They rather text. Voice is reserved for emergencies. It is fascinating that the methods of communication used by older generations is much different than what is now being used now by the newer generations. This process of change is likely to continue.

One prediction that he made is that cellphones will all soon be equipped with a projector that will allow human interfacing within the projected image.

Inch or Metric?

A recent discussion on eng-tips.com has prompted some interesting replies. The discussion revolves around one individual asking for advice to help in the battle to promote metric at his company, despite push-back from their machine shop, and a lack of concern about the issue from higher-ups who have taken a pragmatic cost related approach. I believe that the responses received may have surprized this individual.

There are some who point out that the cost of switching to metric must be justified and explained to management. The problem here is that there IS a cost associated with switching from a shop based on inch tooling to a shop based on metric tooling. Is there savings associated with the switch? The benefits of switching units of measure are likely limited, unless they are dealing with much more complex issues. Once a company has a system in place, it is generally not economical to switch it midstream.

Several made the point that if the company is already standardized to inch, then any individuals at that company should adjust their methods accordingly. This is the same if a person accustomed to inch joins a company that has standardized to metric.

What I personally questioned was the rather strange idea that metric is somehow some sort of default when it comes to making the choice. The universe doesn’t know the difference between an inch and a millimeter. For us in the engineering field, it is easier to think in metric than in inch, but what are the real world advantages of one system or another? Unit of measure is completely arbitrary. One person who responded to the posting even pointed out the advantages of using hardware from both systems at the same time.

“But the rest of the world is using metric!” Umm, really? That, by itself, is an arbitrary point.

A counter arbitrary point, the United States of America has the largest economy on the planet by almost 2-fold. It doesn’t really matter what rest of world does because the U.S. is so big. It’s like saying that the 800lb gorilla in the room should wear jeans just because all the chimps in the room are wearing them. Maybe the gorilla is happy with his corduroys instead.

To this, there was a response about how the world combined outweighed the U.S. economy, and that the US is not 100% inch. My point at that time was simple, “…Americans might be surprized by the number of countries that ARE NOT 100% metric, many of which are in Europe. ”

I was surprized by the responses that comment provoked. There is apparently much less standardization going on around that planet that we’ve been lead to believe by hardcore metric proponents here in the U.S. I know about the imperial gallon, the pint, and oddities like the metric ton. However, I didn’t expect responses from the international community stating that there are significant fields and regions where standardization is in the old traditional imperial system and not metric.

The more I explore this topic, the more I’m convinced that it really just doesn’t matter. Once a choice for a company is made, then they should stick to it. I’m also learning that some strong proponents of metric here in the U.S. have a tendency to assume metric has greater adoption than what is true in reality.