BOTS

The following blog was inspired by an article written by Ann R. Thryft.   Ann is the senior technical editor for Materials and Assembly for Design News.  This is a marvelous magazine that highlights engineering efforts underway and making news on a daily basis.  The photographs were also taken from that article.

I have a fascination with robotic systems that can perform functions emulating human beings and various animals.   There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that “homo sapiens” are the most complicated organisms on our planet.   An electromechanical device capable of performing functions hazardous and unsafe for humans would necessarily be patterned after subjects who can get the job done—namely us.   There are also certain capabilities animals have that definitely apply to the performance of some functions.     Let’s now take a look several research and development efforts specifically patterned after “lesser creatures”.

SPIDER

The Multi-Appendage Robotic System (MARS) from Virginia Tech’s Robotics & Mechanisms Laboratory looks like a giant spider with six legs instead of eight. Fabricated out of carbon fiber and aluminum, the robot’s legs are spaced axi-symmetrically around its body, which lets it walk omni-directionally. Each leg uses a proximal joint with two degrees of freedom and a distal joint with one degree of freedom for added strength and rigidity. The goal is to develop a walking gait system for negotiating terrain with variations in height.   Changing elevations has always been a considerable impediment to robotic systems relative to continued motion.  The system is based on simplified biological neuron networks, arranged in sub networks and subsystems to support the operation of another neural network: a central pattern generator (CPG) that generates gait patterns based on feedback from all supporting systems.  .    I think it’s a little scary what these things can do.  I certainly understand the need to go where human health and safety would be compromised but I’m a little nervous relative to the more clandestine possibilities.  Remember the movie “Minority Report” and the “bots” used to search for the hero (Tom Cruise)?   He’s lying there in the tub, under water, to avoid these pesky little devices that will certainly cause his capture and possible death.  (OK so I’m paranoid!)  The mechanical aspects represent just how far engineering has come and how successful y we have mastered emulating “moving things”.  I am also fascinated that programming can make these things do what is needed.   This “spider” robot reminds me of that movie.  It certainly appears that fact has caught with fiction.   (Source: Virginia Polytechnic and State University)

 

INCH WORM

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology‘s Inchworm (shown above) moves like a caterpillar by flexing and extending itself. Electromagnets at each end of its body provide the anchoring force. Developed by a team at the Distributed Robotics Laboratory of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, the Inchworm can climb vertical steel walls or crawl across a steel ceiling by using the electromagnets to attach itself to surfaces. It can also navigate autonomously in unknown environments by making transitions between surfaces. Its stepping gait for straight-line motion consists of four phases: attach the back foot, extend the front foot, attach the front foot, contract the back foot. While navigating, it can also push and pull objects.    Of course the effectiveness is negated when the device tries to move over a surface that is not metallic in nature.  This represents the fact that it has been designed for a very specific purpose.    (Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

MOBEE

Some winged robots are designed to work in swarms, such as the MonolithicBee, or MoBee, from Harvard University’s Microrobotics Lab. This lab focuseson creating high-performance aerial and ambulatory microrobots and soft robots inspired by biological models. The robots can be used for exploring hazardous environments, search-and-rescue operations, environmental monitoring, and assisting agriculture. The MoBee, which is about the size of a housefly, is made from custom hardware. It is part of the RoboBees Project funded by the National Science Foundation for mimicking the behavior of a bee colony and adapting to changing environments.   The most fascinating fact, at least to me, is the very small size and how engineers and manufacturers fashion the individual component parts to assemble the device.  Please look at the JPEG above and notice the comparison with the quarter it sits on.  Truly marvelous engineering from the guys at Harvard.   (Source: Harvard University)

The University of California, Berkeley’s Biomimetics Millisystems Laboratory has designed two small winged robots: the Dynamic Autonomous Sprawled Hexapod (DASH), a cockroach-like robot with wings added to boost ground locomotion, and the flying Bipedal Ornithopter for Locomotion Transitioning (BOLT), shown below. The BOLT, a 13-gram ornithopter, is based on the lab’s OctoROACH, also inspired by a cockroach. The BOLT uses its flapping wings to provide passive stability when running at up to 2.5m/sec while maintaining ground contact, as well as for flying. This lets it travel over a variety of difficult environments for surveillance or search-and-rescue operations.   (Source: University of California, Berkeley)

These systems are important and fascinating because they represent research underway to advance “state-of-the -art” for robotic systems and fulfill definiteneeds—very definite needs.   Each system was developed for a specific purpose but all represent the ability to remove an individual from harms way.    Most of the effort is funded by the DOD or DARPA but the results have definite possibilities for law enforcement also.  Used properly, lives and property could save the agony of personal injury and reduce unnecessary liability.  Another huge benefit necessary to these programs is the development of software and mathematical algorithms required to drive systems such as the ones shown above.   We are a long way from “terminator-type” devices but we probably do not wish to go there anyway.  I certainly hope you enjoyed this very brief summary and have gotten some idea as to where we are relative to robotic systems.  Exciting work is continuing and I’m sure by this time next year remarkable advances will have taken place.

 

CLATHRATE HYDRATE

I certainly enjoy reading about and understanding new technologies.  Those technologies that provide “value added” by their very nature.   I just ran across two “new words” that demonstrate old dogs can learn new tricks and seemingly old technology can be new to the uninitiated—in other words me.  Do you know what a clathrate is?  A clathrate hydrate?  OK, neither did I.  Here we go.

Clathrate hydrate technology was first proposed in 1942 by M.E. Benesh as a method of storing natural gas.   An excellent paper entitled “Gas Hydrate Storage Processes for Natural Gas”, written by R.E. Rogers, Yu Zhong, R. Arunkumar, J.A. Etheridge, L.E. Pearson, J. McCowan and K. Hogncamp give basic details as to how this technology would work in a very practical sense.  All gentlemen teach at Mississippi State University and have spent years working to research and perfect a working prototype used to demonstrate that this can be a viable approach to the problem of storage.  I would like to indicate some of the conclusion derived from that study, as follows:

“Formidable problems (forming hydrates rapidly, collecting and packing hydrates, and reacting interstitial water) to make natural gas storage in gas hydrates an economically viable process are overcome by forming the hydrates from a surfactant solution. In the feasibility study, a non-stirred laboratory test cell could be filled with hydrates in less than 3 hours with a capacity of 156 vol/vol. The important attributes of the laboratory process are incorporated in the design for a proof-of concept scale-up. Simplicity and minimum labor requirements are stressed in the design. The process is designed to store 5,000 scf of natural gas in gas hydrates to be formed from surfactant solutions at 550 psig and 35°F. A finned-tube heat exchanger accommodates latent-heat transfer during hydrate formation and decomposition, but the exchanger also serves to collect by adsorption and symmetrically pack hydrate particles as they form.  The proof-of-concept facility is based on experimental results of the laboratory feasibility study; the facility has been constructed, installed and full-scale tests are proceeding. “

As indicated in the first sentence of the paper—“Gas hydrates are clathrates where guest gas molecules are occluded in a lattice of host water molecules.”  Well and good, but for a “gear-head” like me, what does this mean?  A clathrate hydrate is a very special type of hydrate in which a lattice of water molecules encloses molecules of trapped gas.  This gas could be methane, ethane, syngas, etc etc.  You get the picture.  For our purposes, we will discuss methane only.

 Large amounts of methane, naturally frozen in this form, have been discovered in both permafrost formations and sea beds under the ocean’s floor.  Methane hydrates are believed to form by migration of gas from significant depths along geological faults, followed by precipitation or crystallization, upon contact with rising gas streams of cold sea water.   About 6.4 trillion (that is, 6.4×10¹²) tons of methane lie at the bottom of the oceans in the form of clathrate hydrate.  Each kilogram of fully occupied hydrate (actually only about 96% occupancy is found) holds about 187 liters of methane (at atmospheric pressure).  

 One significant fact, ice-core methane clathrate records represent a primary source of data for global warming research, along with oxygen and carbon dioxide.   This is one reason why there is research data available on the huge quantities of entrapped methane gas.   As mentioned above, Mr.  M.E. Benesh first proposed using this technique as a method of storing natural gas as early as 1942. At that time, the methodology of doing so was not available, now it very well may be as demonstrated by Mississippi State.  

There are several classifications of clathrates.  The table below will indicate those classifications with a depiction of the lattice structures given above the table:

Since methane clathrates are stable at higher temperatures than LNG, there is a great interest in converting natural gas into clathrates rather than liquefying it prior to transporting by seagoing vessels.  A significant advantage would be the production of natural gas hydrate from natural gas at the terminal.  This would require a much smaller refrigeration plant and less overall energy as compared to the production of LNG.  The only real issue seems to be the rate of production and the economic viability of production.   Both issues are being addressed at this time by Mississippi State University. 

The real benefits would come from incorporating this storage method for locations in which it is impossible to fabricate transmission piping or transmit the gas in an easy fashion other than tanker or truck.  It is something to be aware of and to think about.  At any rate, it is fascinating.  I hope you agree.

SPACE JUNK

SPACE JUNK

The following resources were used in writing this document:

• “Scientists Battle Space Debris Threat”: CBS News, 23 April 2011
• “Space Debris”: Wikipedia
• “Space Junk Endangers NASA Satellites”: Elizabeth Montalbano, Information Week, 2 September 2011
• “Space Junk Janitors Should Sweep Up 5 Dead Satellites”: Biology & Nature, 27 February 2012
• “Space Junk to Triple by 2030”: Lenord Davis, Space.com, 9 May 2011

I can’t stand dirt.  Dirty house, dirty car, dirty office, and I am making some changes.  Fortunately, my wife is a “neatnick”.  She also—CAN’T STAND DIRT.  To further demonstrate the point, one evening, just before sundown, she looked through our den windows towards the setting sun and pronounced “we WILL clean these filthy windows inside and outside tomorrow”.  I felt her “pane”.  (Pardon the clever play on words!)  Dirt is one thing, but I’m OK with a little clutter.  I have several editions of Machine Design, Design News, Science and Technology, etc. sitting around waiting on the spirit to move me towards picking them up to read.  The older ones I consider collector’s items.  This is perhaps the only way I cannot be considered a hoarder.  

The tiny blue dot we live on does have a significant problem with clutter SPACE JUNK–  I will demonstrate as follows:

The digital photograph above shows the approximate position of debris remaining as a result of exploits in space, both ours and other countries, having the technology to launch rockets that carry payloads.  Perhaps a more enlightening JPEG, given below, will be more helpful and further illustrate the issue faced by NASA and other space-related agencies.   Please keep in mind all objects are moving. None are stationary; consequently, any depiction of position must be an estimate of position. 

It has been estimated by Hugh Lewis from The University of Southampton that over this decade, there could be as much as a fifty percent (50%) increase in debris.  Already, the International Space Station has had to fire thrusters to avoid moving “garbage” orbiting earth.  The result would have been disastrous had this action not been taken.  Some experts from NASA and within several university systems state we have already reached the “tipping point” and corrections would be virtually impossible and remarkably expensive.   NASA estimates there are at least 500,000 pieces of debris orbiting earth and some of that debris is moving at 17,500 miles per hour.  Of course, any “strike” at these speeds could produce life-threating damage to personnel and systems.   Damage such as the one shown below could absolutely destroy delicate equipment and seriously injure, if not kill, astronauts.

The overwhelming number of particles are smaller than one centimeter; i.e., 0.39 inches, but others are of considerable size.  Estimates are as follows:

• 1,500 pieces of debris weighing more than 100 Kg or 200 pounds
• 19,000 pieces of debris measuring between 1 to 10 centimeters; 3.9 inches
• An unestimated number of particles, mostly dust and paint “chips” resulting from collisions that have occurred with larger objects also orbiting.  Some “guesses” put that number into the millions.

For the most part, the debris can be categorized as follows:

• Jettisoned garbage from manned spacecraft, purposefully disposed of into lower earth orbit
• Lost equipment; i.e. cameras, tools, measuring devices, fabric hold-down straps, nuts, bolts, cotter pins, etc.
• Debris from collisions tearing apart structures either jettisoned or lost
• Rocket boosters that orbit yet remain in space.  Some, over time, experience decaying orbits, eventually falling to earth. 
• Satellites that no longer function but still orbit in LEO (Low Earth Orbit) or HEO (High Earth Orbit). Generally satellites operate between 435 to 800 miles above the earth.  When these satellites “die”, they do not accomplish reentry but simply stay aloft as dormant objects.  Think of the number of telecommunication devices now orbiting the earth.    Most will eventually fade and no longer fulfill their purpose, being replaced with newer technology. 

With an ever increasing number of launches, engineers and scientists are designing into their products, systems that will provide for ultimate reentry when that system or component performs its function.   Let’s assume a satellite has performed properly for nine years but now is dormant due to programmed obsolescence.  What if, pulse jets could fire altering trajectory and orbit so reentry could be possible?  If that reentry could be a controlled, one “chunk” of debris would be eliminated; consequently, eliminating possible damage to other orbiting bodies or future launches.  This is the current mind-set being explored.

With at least fifty nations participating within the space environment, the amount of debris can only lessen but not be eliminated.  At the present time, over 20,000 pieces of debris are being tracked from facilities such as the one below:

Facilities such as this can at least estimate collisions and, more importantly, any debris that may be in a decaying orbit that will eventually create reentry into earth’s atmosphere.  Over the past ten to fifteen years several large pieces of debris have reentered although most fall into our oceans or uninhabited land.   It becomes ever so critical to remain aware of location to preclude injury on the ground or provide successful future launches.  Several government agencies, as well as universities, have undertaken programs to explore methodologies to reclaim or at least deflect debris that might be potentially dangerous.   Monetary estimates, technical risk and overall complexities of design are significant, and we seem to be a long way from even mounting demonstration programs that will indicate possible success.  This is one area that will be fascinating to watch over the next twenty years.  Stay tuned.

COMPUTATIONAL ENGINEERING

Sir Isaac Newton once said in a letter to Robert Hooke, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”  His letter to Hooke was written in 1676 but still carries significant truth, certainly today.  Let’s face facts; technology is evolutionary and not revolutionary.  The Wright brothers flew a bi-wing airplane made from wood and fabric and not an SR-71.  The first “horseless carriage” was not a Lomborghani.   The use of leeches (for medicinal purposes only) definitely preceded penicillin.  The abacus was a very functional “counting device” centuries before the computer.  You get the picture.  Computational engineering is a fascinating technology, evolutionary in nature.  This discipline did not burst upon the scene overnight but evolved over the years to become one of the most truly viable research tools in today’s arsenal of investigative methodology.  The “proper” definition of computational engineering is as follows:

                “Computational engineering encompasses the design, development, and application of computational systems for the solution of physical problems in engineering and science.  These computational systems include not only the algorithms and software required for the solution of mathematical equations describing physical processes, but also the means and methods of visualizing, analyzing and interpreting computed results and other physical data. “ 

This definition is taken from the High Performance Computing Collaboratory facility at Mississippi State University.  Mississippi State has one of the most respected departments of computational engineering in the United States. 

Another excellent definition comes from The University of Auckland and is as follows:

                “Computational Science (called also Scientific Computing or Numerical Analysis) is the design, development, application, and analysis of computer algorithms and software to solve scientific and engineering problems. It includes not only numerical methods, probabilistic modeling, computer-based statistical inference, and computer simulation required for solving underlying systems of math equations, but also computer visualization, statistical analysis, and interpretation of computed solutions.”

All of this is well and good but why oh why do we need discovery techniques of this nature and why so detailed.  I cannot say it any better than the following statement from Dr. J. Tinsley Oden:

                “Near the end of the twentieth century, much of the industrialized world was becoming aware that the foundations of science and engineering were under rapid, dramatic, and irreversible change brought on by the advent of the computer. The steady increase in computer capabilities and the enormous expansion in the scope and sophistication of computational modeling and simulation place computational sciences as the third pillar of scientific discovery and revolutionize the way engineering is done. Computational engineering and science can impact virtually every aspect of human existence, along with the health, security, productivity, and competitiveness of the nation.”
        J. Tinsley Oden, Associate Vice President for Research, The University of Texas at Austin

  Let us now take a look at the results of computational engineering and the output derived from the process.

Formula 1 Racer

 

As you can see from the JPEG above, knowing the airflow around a Formula 1 race car can provide evidence of laminar flow that could provide a win when the checkered flag is dropped.  Disruption of airflow around an object could create resistance to lessen performance.

This is one of my favorite and shows the air flow around a shuttle craft re-entry vehicle.  Critically important information when considering the fact that re-entry is difficult enough and would be more so if surface-generated turbulence was an added problem.

 

Shuttlecraft

The JPEG below shows results of a study demonstrating the effect of “blunt force trauma” to the human skull.  Studies such as this are very important in understanding what happens when an NFL running back meets Ray Lewis.  We all know there is a class-action lawsuit against the NFL to compensate players who have experienced concussions during their playing years.  Computational engineering can aid efforts to fully understand what happens.

Human Skull

 

There are several schools that offer degrees in computational engineering (CmE), usually at the MS and PhD levels.  A BS degree in computer science, mathematics or engineering is almost always a minimum requirement with BS degrees in CmE not being offered.  Excellent schools offering course work and degrees in this field are as follows:

• University of Tennessee at Chattanooga—SIM Center
• Mississippi State University
• MIT
• University of Texas at Austin
• Georgia Institute of Technology
• Purdue
• Notre Dame
• University of Utah
• Arizona State University

 I am sure there are other, maybe many others, but these are noted for their contributions to the technology.   I certainly hope you will take a look at the possibilities and continue to study what is available relative to seminars and short courses.

 

 

R2D2—WHERE ARE YOU?

One of the most fascinating technologies to emerge during the last two decades is the science of robotics.  As we all know, robotics requires the combination of multiple disciplines; i.e. mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, electronics, computer programming, etc. to produce mechanisms that handle repetitive assembly and process operations.   I have had the great pleasure of specifying and installing robotic equipment, and in doing so, have become aware of their great versatility when applied to manufacturing environments.    Improvements in computer hardware and software have made possible these remarkable advances in this technology with an ever-increasing number of applications.  A fascinating application is the use of robots to perform precise surgical procedures with the surgeon being in the next room, or the next state or a completely different country.   I can only imagine where the technology will be in another fifty years. 

There are four (4) basic robotic types, as follows: 1.) Cartesian, 2.) SCARA, 3.) Articulated and 4.) Delta/parallel.  Let’s now take a very brief look at all four.

CARTESIAN

The Cartesian kinematic solution is highly configurable as the platform includes everything from a single degree of freedom or unidirectional travel, to numerous axes of motion.   Generally, three axis of movement; “X”,”Y” and “Z”, provide acceptable travel to accomplish a given task with the substrate being stationary throughout the process.    The Cartesian robot I just installed is responsible for “laying down” a ribbon of silicone on a small aluminized metal bracket.  This bracket, with adhesive, is then applied to a plate of tempered glass.   When completely dry, the assembly demonstrates 300 PSI of tensile pressure and with significant cost reductions as compared to double-sided pressure sensitive tape.   A representative JPEG is given below to demonstrate the basic configuration. 

 

 

This type of robot can be programmed to perform rapid movements with considerable accuracy; i.e. ± 0.005 inches.  Also, it is one of the simplest robotic systems to program.

SCARA (SELECTIVE COMPLIANCE ROBOT ARM)

The SCARA type robotic system offers a cylindrical work envelope.  This system typically offers higher speeds for picking, placing and handling when compared to the Cartesian system.  For this reason, the SCARA type is sometimes called a “pick and place” robot.  This class of robot is capable of handling components weighing up to 10 kilos or more with extremely high repeatability.   A photograph of the SCARA-type is as follows:

As you can see from the JPEG, the major movement is circular and around a supporting column with at least four degrees of freedom; i.e. “X”, “Y”, “Z” and “R”, with “R” being a rotation of the shaft supporting the work head.  One GREAT caution, the system must be positioned in a fashion so that personnel will not be impacted by the arm as it moves through various cycles.  I found this out the hard way.  A barrier should be integral to the “hardware” to protect operators when operations are being performed. 

ARTICULATED

Articulated robots have a spherical work envelope with the greatest level of flexibility due to the increased number of degrees of freedom (DOF).   These robots offer an extremely wide range of solutions including the ability to maneuver 1000 kilos or more.   These are the big boys that deliver great precision, with great speed and a high degree of flexibility.  With this flexibility comes the need for more “elegant” programming and much higher attention to safety.

DELTA/PARALLEL

This type of robotic system utilizes a parallelogram and produces three purely transitional degrees of freedom.  Base-mounted motors and low-mass links allow for exceptionally fast accelerations and therefore greater throughput when compared to their peer groups.   The robot is an overhead- mounted solution that maximizes its access but also minimizes the footprint.  They are designed to offer very low maintenance and allow for high-speed handling of light-weight products.   As mentioned, this is a fascinating technology adn one that s with us for years to come.  As with any useful process, we have only scratched the surface relative to what might be in store as far as developments and advancements.

ENGINEERING TRENDS FOR 2012 AND BEYOND

ENGINEERING TRENDS FOR 2012 AND BEYOND

It’s been an interesting year and one which will not be soon forgotten.  I definitely feel actions taken, or not taken, have provided the groundwork for 2012 to be a pivotal year in our nation’s history.  I also feel there have been significant engineering activities that will drive us to much greater technical accomplishments next year and years beyond.  On one hand, 2012 could be a rough ride for those of us who work for a living and yet engineering developments and scientific discoveries could possibly generate thousands, if not millions, of jobs.  I will indicate what I feel are this year’s most important secular stories AND this years most important engineering advancements.   I think you will find significant differences in tone and optimism.  Here goes:

WORLD STAGE:

• Leaving Iraq—The good news, we are out.  The bad news, all of our returning Vets will need jobs and those jobs are not necessarily waiting their return.  The cost of the war in human capital was tremendously devastating but, it’s over.
• Death of Osama Bin Laden—Bin Laden was the “face” of terrorism for the United States.  His death was a necessary event for us to move on.
• Japanese Earthquake and subsequent tsunami—This event was absolutely devastating to the Tohoku area of Japan and the Fukushima Nuclear power plant.  The effects will be lasting for decades to come.
• Fall of Joe Paterno and Penn State—Even though Mr. Paterno was seemingly a bystander in the events leading up to his resignation, the damage to Penn State and the educational system will remain for quite some time.   Students, by necessity, have become much more suspicious of authority in general but this event heightens their suspicions.
• Blago trial—Illinois just can’t seem to catch a break.  The past two governors have been indicted and will serve time for basic greed and other misdeeds.  (Must be the water!)
• Casey Anthony trial—This proves you can keep your mouth shut and get away with just about anything.
• GOP hopefuls and their run for the White House—A modern mess. There must be a better way to achieve the nomination.  The political slander is shameful.
• $15 Trillion US debt
• Financial difficulties in Europe and with the “euro”
• Arab “spring” – As a results of various “social networks”, people in the Middle-East are finding out what they are missing.
• Death of Moammar Gadhafi—His death certainly marks a turning point for Libya
• Fall of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak
• A remarkably ineffective US Congress—Does anyone really know how these folks spend their time?
• A President who refuses to engage and lead
• Saying goodbye to our manned space flight effort—A huge mistake on our part and one in which we will regret for decades to come.
• Residential housing “meltdown”—A well officiated game in the NFL has more oversight than given to “Freddie” and “Fanny”.  Another shameful episode.
• 9.2% unemployment
• Discovery of largest black hole in the known universe
• “Earth-like” planets “
• Death of Kim Jong-Il

I am sure I have missed a few but these events will have lasting effects upon the United States and other countries of the world.  

 Now, let’s take a look at those engineering and scientific accomplishments that WILL change our lives for the better.  In my opinion, these will alter how we live, the products we use and our ability to pull ourselves from the financial morass we are in.  Here is my list:

ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC

• Launch of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner—80% of this remarkable commercial airplane is assembled using composite materials.  These strong but lightweight materials provide a 20% improvement in fuel economy.  This product demonstrates what is possible with other products using composites and how “thinking big” can make a difference.
• “I” devices—I-phone, I-pad, Apple computers, all give us designs that complement our lives and (again ) demonstrate what can be accomplished with vision and good old fashioned hard work.
• Going “green”—Efforts to conserve will be with us for the foreseeable future and should be.   As a society, we need to recognize that our very existence results from the ecology around us.
• RFID technology—A tremendously important method of controlling and documenting “stuff”.  A remarkably fast-moving technology.
• Application (apps) software for “smart” devices—The possibilities are endless.
• Adhesives—More and more, adhesives are replacing traditional methods of fastening components together.  In many instances, nuts, bolts, weldments, etc can be replaced with lower cost adhesives.
• Large Hadron Collider—This device, located at CERN, can possibly provide the answers to how our universe came to be.  The search for the “god” particle (Higgs Boson) is underway at this time.
• NASA Kepler Telescope—A remarkable engineering feat!  Kepler is discovering worlds we only imagined a few years ago. 
• NANO technology—NANO technology promises to improve noninvesative medical procedures and provide doctors with information on a micro level.  Other uses are just as exciting and long lasting.
• Advances in laser technology and fiber optics—Improvements in band width and baud rate will result from these efforts.  Who knows, if the FED gets out of the picture maybe there will come a day in which there will be no dropped calls.
• Rapid prototyping—This emerging technology can provide manufacturers and design engineers with prototypes within hours.  The various processes can be hastened to launch better products much faster than ever before. 
• Access to clean water—We sometimes think that oil and petroleum products drive our societies. Not true—it’s clean water.  This is the resource we absolutely cannot do without.  Efforts are now underway to better utilize and manage this non-renewable resource.
• Secure cyberspace—The day will come when true security is possible and we will no longer fear the “hacker”.  At that time, we will only have the CIA, FBI and IRS to worry about.
• Advancements in semiconductors—These advancements will lead to the development of products on a micro scale and foster continued development of NANO technology.  We will be able to do more with less.

I think you can see the great optimism relative to the second list.  Please notice the contrast.  This is one reason that some of us, although dimensioning in number, choose to be engineers and not politicians.

 

STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS

STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS

This blog uses the following references: 1.) Manufacturing Engineering, “Masters of Manufacturing—Dr. Carl R. Deckard”, July 2011 and 2.) Rapid Prototyping—PDHonline by Bob Jackson.

Sir Isaac Newton once said “if we accomplish at all we do so by standing on the shoulders of giants”.   Engineering technology and scientific endeavor have always been dependent upon those discoveries preceding “great enterprise”.   My generation laughingly calls this kicking the can down the road.  There are many marvelous technologies that had to wait until other discoveries were made.  The i-PAD would be impossible without transistors; RFID (radio frequency identification) could never have been commercialized had “chip” technology not been available and rapid prototyping, specifically, selective laser sintering, would be just a great idea without computer aided design and parametric modeling.   Selective laser sintering (SLS) is an “additative” technology in which highly complex parts can be manufactured and prototyped from materials such as metal, plastic, ceramic, and sand. The material, in powdered form, is deposited on a platform, then a carbon dioxide (CO₂) laser is used to selectively melt or sinter the powder into the desired shape for each layer. The layers are lowered on a platform, with loose powder around the growing structure acting as a support for the top powder layer. Computer programs slice the CAD three-dimensional model into layers approximately 0.001 inch in thickness to achieve the profile required by the design.  As mentioned, the platform is lowered by the height of the next layer and powder is reapplied. This process continues until the part is complete.   The strength and porosity of the material can be controlled by adjusting various process parameters, such as laser scanning speed and power. Products have ranged from turbine rotors to medical inserts.

Developed by Carl Deckard for his master’s thesis at the University of Texas, selective laser sintering was patented in 1989.    Dr. Deckard is one of those “giants” I would like to bring to your attention with this document.   Dr. Deckard, as much as any individual, was destined to be the developer of an innovative and transformative technology.  His statement—“as far back as I can remember, I wanted to be a scientist”, pretty much says it all.  That changed when Deckard’s father took him to the Henry Ford museum.  He was eight years old at the time.  “I decided that I wanted to be an inventor from that time on”. Not an easy task since you are looking for things that really do not exist.  During his grammar school years, he actively studied the lives of the great inventors and became very familiar with the patent process while working on a number of inventions himself.  Upon leaving high school, he decided he wanted to be a mechanical engineer.  He felt that profession was the closest thing to majoring in invention.   The timing could not have been better.  In the 1980s, computers and 3-D CAD were about to change the way parts and associated tooling were made.  “The hype in the early days of 3-D CAD was that you could go from a computer model to a CNC program in an automatic way.”  That really did not happen until some years later, but that was all the “buzz”.  Still, even using 3-D CAD, you had to go from the drawing to a casting or a forging or a CNC mill or lathe.  The process of going right from the parametric model to a completed prototype was not possible at the time.  This is where the genius of Deckard became apparent.  The very first thing he realized was that the process, to be successful, had to be addititive.  “With a subtractive process, there are too many geometric constraints and if you machine one area it affects another area”.  You have to have tool access for a subtractive process to be viable.  From this thought, he decided the process had to be an incremental addititive process in a regular sequence.   He experimented with sugar and salt and finally decided that using a two-powder approach would be very difficult and not yield the results he was after.  Those results were quality and attention to detail.   That is when he decided to lay down one power and hit it with a directed energy beam and that beam would be controlled by a computer.   He recalls that this was something that really could work and was worth putting effort into.    By the time he was accepted into graduate school, he realized that this could be a great graduate research project.  Vision and future came together at this point and he approached Dr. Joe Beaman, a University of Texas professor.  His “pitch”—to build three-dimensional objects from a computer model using layers of powder and melting those powders together with a directed energy beam.  The Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Texas had just moved into a new building and there was money for equipment and tooling.  Deckard was told to “spec-out” the equipment he would need for the project.  This equipment included a 2-D laser scanning 30 frames per second.  As it turned out, he had made a fairly serious error in his calculations and re-speced the laser to a 100 watt YAG with galvanometer tracking.   He used, believe it or not, a Commodore 64 as his computer.  64K!  His program was hand-assembled and a whopping 153 bytes long.  The original setup proved the concept.  The first models were very crude but persistence yielded approval from the school to go forth and apply for a US patent.   During the early phases of his work he decided to commercialize the device but could not interest any large companies to finance the risk.   At this time, he began looking for partners to establish a start-up business and eventually was able to team up with B.F. Goodrich. The initial expenditure was $300,000.   This joint-venture yielded the very first commercialized laser sintering process and produced the SLS 125.   Since that time, there have been many developments and many iterations relative to the initial concept—all producing marvelous results and cutting the time to prototype from days, possibly weeks, to hours.  Even the most complicated model rarely takes over 72 hours to make.     

Let me now ask, do you know the following names—Justin Bieber, Kim Kardashain, LL Cool J, Beyonce?  You know these folks.  Granted, maybe great performers but, how much have they really contributed to society? Just how much?   OK, so why have you never heard, until now, of Dr. Carl R. Deckard or many of the other engineers, mathematicians, scientists, etc. who labor quietly following their passion.   We can change this and you are– right now.

Hope you have a great week—-Bob Jackson

HIGH QUALITY TEACHERS

HIGH QUALITY TEACHERS

The idea for this document results from an article by Mr. Leland Teschler.  Leland is the editor of Machine Design Magazine, a Penton Publication.  He asks the question—“do we really need high-quality teaching”?  I don’t think there is too much doubt that, like other professions, there are good teachers and those that don’t quite “measure up” relative to existing standards.  We have all gone through this at some time; a teacher who knows the subject “cold” but just can’t deliver the message. Can’t get is across.  Can’t connect.  Then there are others who simply don’t know the subject matter.  A much more fundamental problem!    One response received was from a teacher who said, “teacher quality did not matter much in what eventually happens to students”.  Now,  we have proof that good instruction from secondary school teachers does affect the earning power of a graduated student.  Dr. Eric Hanushek from Stanford University provides us with the following information:

• One standard deviation in math scores for a graduating senior translates into a 10% increase in annual salary.  The present value for lifetime income between the ages of 25 and 70 is $ 1.16 million.  With that being the case, an improvement by one standard deviation would add $150,000 to that figure.
• There is a definite improvement in cognitive skills accompanying this improvement in math skills.  This improvement would add $10,600 to lifetime earning.
• A significantly better teacher would add $300,000 to the lifetime earnings for a class of 30 students –just as a result of improved cognitive ability.
• If the lower 8% of teachers were replaced with average teachers, we would rank as highly as South Korea, Finland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Canada.  Removing these teachers would drive our ultimate ability to produce graduates who could compete in a world environment.

MAYBE QUALIFIED TEACHERS DO MATTER.

RFID TECHNOLOGY

I have just completed my ninth (9th) “white paper” and training guide for the web site PDHonline.  This site caters to individuals interested in technology and makes a concerted effort to inform and enlighten.  You do not have to be a professional engineer, mathematician, chemist, etc etc to enjoy the course material.  I would invite anyone who is interested in “how things work” to visit the site and take a look. 

I am attaching documentation that will give some indication as to what the course is about.  Hope you enjoy the following write-up.

RFID TECHNOLOGY

A TECHNOLOGY FOR CUTTING COSTS AND IMPROVING EFFICIENCY

Robert P. Jackson, PE

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This course is structured to introduce the concepts of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID ) to individuals wishing to gain a detailed understanding of the operation, components, potential for cost savings and the potential for improvement in efficiency.  RFID technology has been called the most exciting “NEW” technology in the twenty-first century.  The uses today are remarkably varied.  We present six (6) case studies that provide examples of how diverse the applications can be and how those uses can greatly automate processes that once were manual in nature.  The benefits and drawbacks are discussed in depth as well as areas of interest when considering implementation.  We devote considerable time towards planning, implementation and manageability of the system and discuss in depth the following:

• Ten(10) questions to ask when considering implementation of RFID technology
• Standards, both domestic and international
• Manageability of systems
• RFID adoption guidelines
• Complete list of vendors
• Extended glossary of terms.

Each component required for operation is discussed in detail as well as the software necessary to “drive the system.”  The subject of privacy is an ongoing concern so this is presented as a “block” for discussion.

COURSE OUTLINE:

This four ( 4 ) hours course attempts to follow a logical progression, moving through three primary areas of focus.  These are as follows:

• INTRODUCTION

1. Interesting applications and case studies of actual usage
2. History of RFID from early inception to the 21^st century
3. Benefits from use including ROI and improved efficiencies
4. Drawbacks to incorporation

• OPERATION

1. Components available and necessary to accomplish specific goals
2. Standards, both international and standards specific to the United States
3. Privacy and Security and who’s looking out for you

• MANAGEMENT OF SYSTEM

1. Manageability of the overall systems
2. Questions to ask before buying ( I devote a great deal of “ink” to this one due to the critical nature of being methodical prior to deciding upon incorporating RFID
3. Conclusions
4. List of vendors and suppliers
5. Glossary ( I feel this is one of the most complete Glossaries available today. )

I have included many figures and tables in support of the text and feel these add a great deal of clarity to the overall course.    The case studies given and other applications point out the present day uses of RFID and those uses that could possibly be considered over the next decade.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

Upon completion of this course the student should have a thorough understanding of RFID concepts and will:

• Be able to understand the numerous applications for the technology
• Have an appreciation for the history of RFID and how the technology was used in the early years
• Know the technological differences between RFID and barcode systems
• Know the standards, international and domestic, that govern the usage for the various commercial systems
• Know when to specify the use of UHF, VHF and microwave frequencies
• Know the difference between “active” and “passive “systems and when each type is appropriate for various applications
• Understand the privacy aspects when specifying and using the technology
• Understand the cost / benefit concepts and when using barcodes is more desirable.  This is called total-cost-of-ownership (TCO)
• Understand the design and fabrication of “tag” (transponder ) components and when an encapsulated tag is needed
• Understand the immediate tangible benefits throughout a supply chain for distribution of a manufactured product
• Understand the need for tag readers and how they operate
• Understand the design and purpose of a tag antenna
• Know the difference between a “read only” and “read/write” RFID system
• Know which type of system needs a battery for operation
• Know why direct line of site is not necessary for an RFID system
• Have an understand for the range and how that range is dependent upon the frequency of the tag / reader combination
• Have an understanding of the EPC ( Electronic Product Code ) and how that code is used relative to the overall process
• Know that a “proper” EPC must have the following: 1.) Header, 2.) Manager Number, 3.) Object Class and 4.) Serial Number.
• Know why RFID “chips” are extremely difficult to “hack” and why that contributes to a secure system
• Know which company ( Wal-Mart ) is moving to RFID technology for most inbound containerized cargo and why that provides a tremendous benefit to their supply chain
• Know why the challenge-response coding is so important and why that provides great security for hazardous materials, pharmaceuticals, weapons used by the DoD, classified documents, etc
• Understand that “reader collision” can occur and produce errors in the system
• Understand the terminology  “hiding and blocking” and “encrypting and rewriting”
• Understand why many airlines are using RFID to track and control baggage
• Have an understanding for the meaning of the acronyms: “EPC”, “EPCIS”, “ONS”, “WMS”, “ERP”, “UCC”, “UCCnet”, “UID”, “EAS”

INTENDED AUDIENCE:

This course is specifically for individuals desiring in-depth knowledge preparatory to making an investment in RFID technology.   It is a technical course but easily understood by “non-engineering” types.  As such, we dive into detailed explanations regarding topics such as UHF, VHF, microwave frequencies, “tags” (transponders), interrogation methodologies and equipment, “back-end” software, RFID antennas and other subjects necessary for a complete understanding of existing RFID technology.   With this in mind, people with the following disciplines would enjoy and benefit from taking this course:

• Industrial engineers
• Process engineers
• System engineers
• IT professionals
• Engineering managers
• CEOs dedicated to incorporating “best practices” into their supply chain methodologies for the improvement of asset management
• COOs responsible for the day-to-day operation of a on-going commercial entity
• CFOs responsible for  “paying the bills” and on the brink of approving an expenditure for RFID equipment and training
• Warehouse supervisors
• Time study specialists interested in improving response time for deliverables
• Managers overseeing shipping and receiving operations in their respective facilities
• Hospital administrators
• Store managers responsible for inventories; i.e. Home Depot, Lowes, Wal-Mart, Sears, Best Buy, etc.
• Managers required to catalogue and locate written documents critical to the operation of their organization; i.e. legal firms, hospital records, libraries, laboratory documents, etc
• Personnel responsible for insuring against theft and shoplifting
• Aerospace and airline personnel responsible for test equipment, ground equipment, assembly tools and fixtures,  repair depots, etc
• Personnel associated with and vendors for the Department of Defense
• City planners interested in improving traffic flow and streamlining toll-gate collections
• Individuals responsible for controlling entry / exit portals for designated personnel only
• Data acquisition specialists
• Material expeditors

BENEFIT FOR ATTENDEES:

The purpose of this four (4) hour course is to provide necessary information so an individual will gain an appreciable understanding of the technology.  This certainly includes operational parameters, hardware and the necessary software to drive the system of components.  The course is structured to go beyond the basics and make it possible for a potential user to gain knowledge that will facilitate informed conversations with suppliers, interrogators and software specialists.  To support the text, we provide a comprehensive glossary of terms integral to an understanding of the technology.  After successful completion, an individual will have a much broader ability to recognize possible applications and determine if RFID is right for those applications.  Quite frankly, I feel the Glossary at the end of the course is worth the cost of the course itself.

There is a quiz at the end of the course which will provide a review and serve as a quick summary of the major points found in the text.

COURSE INTRODUCTION:

Radio Frequency Identification ( RFID ) is an automated means of using radio waves to identify and track the presence and movement of objects.  RFID has been called “the first important technology of the 21^st century” and has become one of the most “talked-about” technologies in business and government today.  The application of RFID has definite benefits relative to tracking objects in supply chain movement.  It allows for the positive identification and control of tangible objects such as:

• Incoming and outgoing pallets cycling through a warehouse environment
• Tracking hazardous materials
• To aid documentation of cycle times
• Containerized cargo entering  ports of call
• WIP ( work in process ) inventories
• “Tags” applied to passports encrypted with information detailing date of birth, address, country of origin, etc.
• Inventories for retail and commercial establishments
• Airline baggage identification
• Access control

There have been several “dooms-day” profits crying that RFID “chips” will be applied to individuals and these chips will be the “mark of the beast” mentioned in the Bible. Anyone desirous of pursuing commercial ends will need this “mark of the beast” to do business.  Until that happens, this course will address the more useful applications of that marvelous technology and strive to help the student understand the verity of application possibilities and the hardware necessary to bring about those applications.

COURSE SUMMARY:

RFID is one of those technologies that “sneaks up” on you.  It has actually been in use for quite a few years and has taken several forms, such as:

• Theft prevention
• Access control  via card readers
• Automated toll road processing

These uses are very visible and “out front” relative to uses within a warehouse, library, or commercial storage area for equipment.  RFID was discovered long before companion technologies made it possible for commercial use.  The actual history is quite fascinating and definitely shows an evolutionary process and not a revolutionary process.  We devote a section to the history of RFID and show how each decade has brought additional development that truly make it a technology of the 21^st century.   With this being said, we have only scratched the surface of its potential.  This is due, in part, to the privacy aspects of the technology.  Independent bodies are addressing these concerns in an ongoing fashion.  The money saved through improved operating efficiencies can be very very significant.  If you feel the need to “do it better”, then RFID is definitely worth the look.  Those companies presently using bar code techniques will recognize definite similarities, a yet many differences, between the two technologies.  The process of incorporation will be much the same with “up-front” planning a real must for success.

 

THE BEST ENGINEERING SCHOOLS

THE BEST ENGINEERING SCHOOLS

Our country is very blessed with excellent schools of higher education and I personally think, correction, I know we have the best schools in the world.  Our engineering schools take students “wet behind the ears” and produce remarkably productive and resourceful professional citizens.  In my opinion (and I’m quite biased in this area) our engineering schools are the best in the world—-hands down!  In the United States though, most entering freshmen would rather be anything other than engineers due to the absence of adequate compensation and the absence of appreciation over a lifetime of work.  That situation is very different than most parts of the world.   Let’s face it, in the United States, engineers don‘t make much money in comparison to other professions.  Those who really “make it” move from engineering into management or succeed in a business of their own.  The number of engineers graduating each year pales in comparison to the number from China and India.  This will eventually catch up with us unless our country moves all manufacturing, research and development and other technical endeavors abroad.  If this occurs, there will be no real need for engineers.  Already this year, China has bested our efforts relative to patents awarded. Already this year, our “executive branch” has gutted NASA.  NASA now has no real direction and layoffs are underway.  Personnel that will never be replaced, certainly within my lifetime. Our country has the second highest corporate tax rates of any country in the world and yet we wonder why we have a ten (10 ) percent unemployment.  Congress needs to do the numbers.  I run a two-man engineering consulting organization and you would  not believe the taxes I pay on an annual basis. 

OK, let us get away from the doom and gloom.  What makes an engineering school great?  What combined elements produce the very best environment for retaining and educating a student?  Given below are those happy circumstances presented by the US News & World Report which make for the most successful teaching institutions.

• FUNDING—Say anything you like to but having the necessary money is critical to a teaching institution.  Money attracts the very best faculty.  Money buys the very best equipment. Money allows for grants, student loans, etc.  The lack thereof is evident in the classroom, student dorms, campus grounds, student facilities, etc.    The school that has the most money provides the best all-around atmosphere for teachers and pupils.
• RESEARCH ORIENTED—Make no mistake about it, an engineering school that teaches AND conducts research will be miles ahead of one that merely teaches.  Governmental and commercial research and development is necessary in today’s world if a school is to maintain the right circumstances and attract the best teachers and the best students.
• STUDENT / TEACHER RATIO—Today, this is no real problem because fewer and fewer students are attracted to engineering.  In my day, a proper classroom size was approximately fifteen students to one teacher.  The very best teaching environments provide this, or lower, student / teacher ratio.
• QUALITY OF FACULTY—This is almost self-explanatory.  The best schools can attract the best teachers and the most gifted teachers.  This is tricky because there are many academically qualified teachers; i.e. good technicians, who can’t teach.  They have no enthusiasm for the classroom and just don’t seem to “get it across”.  Tenure is another subject for another day.
• SIX  (6) YEAR GRADUATION RATE—Some schools seem to go out of their way to see how many students they can fail out freshman year.  I personally think it is appalling that the attrition rate, in engineering, for the first two years is between fifty and sixty-six percent.  At my school, the dropout rate for mechanical engineering, the first year, was fifty-five percent.  Ridiculous!!!! Absolutely ridiculous!  My professors were basically too involved with other endeavors to worry about their freshman or sophomore students because they knew the numbers.  Strangely enough, junior and senior year—they would go to the wall for a student.  Go figure.
• DIVERSITY—Some schools strive for diversity in the classroom, therefore, some students are admitted based upon gender or race.  I have absolutely no problem with that unless it becomes the deciding factor instead of academic ability and those students do not displace more qualified applicants.
• COURSE OFFERINGS—Self-explanatory.
• AVAILABILITY OF SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRANTS—The best students do not always have wealthy parents.  As a matter of fact in most cases, that is the case.  Scholarships and grants MUST be available in order to maintain the most talented student body.  The availability of student loans and grants is a MUST!
• QUALITY OF ON-CAMPUS LIFE- Let’s face facts, even the most academically talented school will not thrive if the dorms are rat-infested—if the cafeteria serves grade “D” food—if there are no internet connections—if there is absolutely nothing to do over the weekend.  The students, even the most gifted students, simply will not enroll.  Word gets around quickly.  If you don’t believe that, talk to any graduating senior in high school and they can tell you, to a man, which school is the “best party school”.  Dollar to a doughnut they all know.  The same is true for “life on campus”.
• HOW MANY TENURED TEACHERS TEACH—TAs (teaching assistants) are fine, sometimes, but a student wants a teacher who has more than a little “gray hair”.  I want the guy or girl, who wrote the book.  
• ENTERING FRESHMAN SAT AND ACT TEST SCORES—The most academically accomplished entering class will be the class that requires zero remedial work.  Consequently less money spent for remedial teaching.  This statistic is always kept by the administration.  The money devoted to remedial teaching can be devoted to other pursuits, if the student body is fully prepared.  The best schools always attract the best students.
• BIG VS SMALL—Many smaller schools have wonderful engineering departments.  I am thinking about schools such as 1.) Rose-Hulman, 2.) Harvey Mudd, 3.) Olin, 4.) Rice University, 5.) University of Rochester, 6.) Carnegie Mellon and 7.) Rensselear Polytechnic Institute.  Larger schools, such as 1.) MIT, 2.) Georgia Tech, 3.)University of Chicago, 4.) CalPoly, etc are obviously wonderful schools also.  The student must decide big vs small.  The smaller schools can be every bit as academically progressive as the larger schools.  The only problem here is—sometimes the larger schools have greater endowments consequently offer better scholarships and grants to the student body at large and have greater research possibilities.

With the above being  given criteria, here is the list provided by the US News & World Report as to their opinion relative to the best engineering schools in the nation.  I’m going to let you draw your own conclusions.

	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2	Stanford University (CA)
3	University of California–Berkeley
4	Georgia Institute of Technology
4	University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
6	California Institute of Technology
6	University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign
8	Carnegie Mellon University (PA)
9	Cornell University (NY)
9	Purdue University–West Lafayette (IN)
9	University of Texas–Austin
12	University of Southern California
13	Texas A&M University–College Station
14	University of Wisconsin–Madison
15	University of California–San Diego
16	Princeton University (NJ)
17	Penn State University–University Park
17	University of Maryland–College Park
19	Northwestern University (IL)
19	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (NY)
21	University of California–Los Angeles
22	Ohio State University
23	University of Minnesota–Twin Cities
24	Johns Hopkins University (MD)
25	Harvard University (MA)
25	University of California–Santa Barbara
25	Virginia Tech
28	North Carolina State University
28	Rice University (TX)
30	University of Colorado–Boulder
31	Columbia University (Fu Foundation) (NY)
31	University of Washington
33	Duke University (NC)
33	University of Pennsylvania
35	University of Florida
36	University of California–Davis
36	University of Virginia
38	Case Western Reserve University (OH)
38	Rutgers State University–New Brunswick (NJ)
40	Iowa State University
40	Lehigh University (PA)
40	Washington University in St. Louis
43	Michigan State University
44	University of Arizona
44	University of Rochester (NY)
44	Yale University (CT)
47	University of Delaware
47	University of New Mexico
49	Arizona State University