CAD in creative design, problem solving
in [SolidWorks]
|
Prev: When Jon Banquer Asks The Beginner Questions With The First Letter Of Every Word Capitalized...
Next: import Revit data
From: Cliff on 18 May 2010 06:34 On Mon, 17 May 2010 11:25:17 -0400, "Existential Angst" <UNfitcat(a)UNoptonline.net> wrote: >In "art" type design, like, say, for a new car body, certainly CAD could be >useful, as a simple curvature of a line can alter the visual effect in auto >design.. >But this is more of an "illustrating" context than say a parts/machining >context. The Space Shuttle's main engines were designed using CADDS III .... BTW, For old-timers ... http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=13473784&gid=2643179&commentID=16421053&trk=view_disc -- Cliff
From: Cliff on 18 May 2010 06:37 On Mon, 17 May 2010 11:25:17 -0400, "Existential Angst" <UNfitcat(a)UNoptonline.net> wrote: >Ito of the actual function/design of mechanical parts, has anyone actually >solved a "design problem" using CAD? Did you consider that a surface is the result of an "equation" and that surface intersections can be found? Not to mention all the number crunching ... and error prevention/detection. -- Cliff
From: Cliff on 18 May 2010 06:44 On Mon, 17 May 2010 21:28:25 -0400, Kirk Gordon <kg1(a)gordon-eng2.com> wrote: >Existential Angst wrote: >> Awl -- >> >> In a pointless response to the Village Idiot (Jon Banquer, unemployed >> ex-thief of Qualcomm, in his absurd notion of him asking difficult Qs), I >> brought up the notions of CAD being more for communication than the design >> process itself. >> Bonkers of course confuses "difficult" with "rancorous". >> >> Some refinements of the design vs. communication notion. >> >> In "art" type design, like, say, for a new car body, certainly CAD could be >> useful, as a simple curvature of a line can alter the visual effect in auto >> design.. >> But this is more of an "illustrating" context than say a parts/machining >> context. >> >> Ito of the actual function/design of mechanical parts, has anyone actually >> solved a "design problem" using CAD? >> And by design problem, I don't mean radius blends, geometry problems, etc, >> for which CAD can really shine, but rather the solution to a "how do I do >> this" engineering-type problem. >> >> For me, the problem is always solved on paper, the essence of the design >> clearly present on a napkin. >> CAD, for me, is just for telling other people where the holes go, or for >> keeping track of the history/evolution of a design.... >> >> Now admittedly, for things like carburetors, these holes can get perty >> complicated, and mebbe CAD would be useful in doping a few things out in >> something like that, but I would think mostly it's a tool for >> communicating/building, not really thinking per se. >> >> After all, some perty complicated carburetors were built before CAD, and I >> don't know that CAD really improved them. >> >> But mebbe they did. >> >> Opinions? Experiences? >> > > > Think really big napkins. Endless, boundless napkins, if you like. > Think about being able to draw a perfectly straight line, or a >perfectly round circle, with just a flick of your wrist. Think about >being able to undo a doodle that looks wrong; but without having to >scribble over it and mess up the whole deal, or without losing time and >train-of-thought when the napkin's full of ink and you need to start >over. Think about being able to pick up one of your doodles, right off >of the napkin, to turn if over and see if it still looks right. Think >about having all your napkins saved in one drawer, so you can easily >find an old one and compare it to something new you just thought of. >Imagine that, almost by magic, all your doodles and scribbles are done >at the same scale, or can be made to scale the same, so that any >collection of doodles can be put onto the same napkin for comparison, >brainstorming, or thought experiments about the project or problem. > > Think about this, too: The first step to solving any problem is to >state the problem accurately and effectively. I find that having the >immediacy of napkin sketching combined with the precision of a CAD >drawing can make the problem itself more visible, which often makes it >more soluble. What's important is not to let the drawing become a >source of delay and distraction that messes up your thought process. > > The reason most CAD users, including me when I was new at it, have >trouble "thinking" with a CAD system is that the mechanics of using the >system get in the way of dreaming and imagining and squeezing thoughts >out of your brain. When a thought appears in your mind, you want to >CAPTURE IT, not go looking for the right command icon, then trying to >make up numbers or mouse-clicked positions that you don't even have yet, >and then extending and trimming and coloring and layering and more, just >to sketch something rough and simple. By the time you've done all that, >the fleeting thought that you were grasping for is gone. > > The solution is not to limit your CAD system to "after-the-fact" >refinement or presentation of a napkin-sketched idea; but to become as >fluent and comfortable with it as you are with your pencil. Then you'll >be BETTER able to play with ideas, and the mechanics of CAD system will >be less limiting than the inaccuracy and messiness and size constraints >and coffee stains on your napkin. When lines and circles and points of >intersection and tangency flow from your mouse the way doodles now flow >from your pencil, you'll think better, more easily, and more effectively. > > To accomplish that level of comfort, you'll need two things. One, a >CAD system that's easy and comfortable to use, and to get thoroughly >used to. And two, lots of practice. Not necessarily structured >practice; but the same kind of constant endless doodling that you now do >on paper. > > One of the reasons I still use AutoCAD Light '97 for much of my >design work (despite JB's endless rants about how idiotic I am) is that >I like it's UI, and I've spent so many zillions of hours with it that I >can can capture ideas using only my fingers, and without distracting my >brain. The CAD system is as natural for me as a pencil, but much more >effective. I don't need to think about drawing; but only about what to >draw. And when I get even the roughest sketch onto my screen, it's a >better sketch, more useful, and more easily played with, than anything I >could do on a napkin, notepad, or drafting board. It's also more >immediate and spontaneous than what I do with more capable CAD software, >which still demands my attention for its own needs. 3D shapes? Fitting >things together? Test assemblies that actually look like they might >work? Later. First I gotta get this thing working in my head. My old >and outdated AutoCAD does that for me like no "stronger" system ever has. > > I once attended a dinner party for a club that my wife belonged to. > She knew all the other club members, but I knew nobody; and even my >wife didn't know any of the spouses. While sitting around a table of 10 >or 12 people, enjoying coffee after dinner, talk turned to something or >other that some folks had questions about, and others offered to >explain. Instantly, three people at the table, including me, reached >into our coat pockets, pulled out our pens, and moved our coffee cups >off of the paper napkins they'd been served on. My wife laughed out >loud. "You can always tell the engineers in any crowd," she said. >"They can't talk or think without a pen or pencil." > > And she was dead right - about the people at the table, and about >the general observation. Thinking - especially the kind involved in >design work of any kind - necessarily involves capturing what we "see" >in our minds. We need to grasp things that would otherwise slip away, >store them outside our heads so our minds are free to keep running >forward, and then look at our ideas as a way to understand them, >manipulate them, and begin hunting for possibilities our original >thoughts had only promised; but not made clear. > > Getting ideas onto paper (or screen) really is a critical part of >the process. Napkins have their virtues, therefore. But so did >slide-rules, and for many of the very same reasons. When was the last >time you used a slipstick, even for rough calculations or estimates? > > Pick a CAD system you can learn to use without effort, that you can >play and doodle with. Save the high-powered software for later. You'll >be amazed at how many napkins will be spared, and how much more robust >your thought processes can become. > >KG http://bugman123.com/MinimalSurfaces/Costa-large.jpg http://bugman123.com/MinimalSurfaces/Scherk-Collins-large.jpg http://www.instructables.com/image/FYGJWT8R83EVYDZTU9/Minimal-Surfaces-With-Metal-Shapes-and-Soap-Bubble.jpg http://www.indiana.edu/~minimal/gallery/index/index.html http://www.freigeist.cc/gallery.html
From: Jim Wilkins on 18 May 2010 07:00 On May 17, 9:28 pm, Kirk Gordon <k...(a)gordon-eng2.com> wrote: > ... > ...My wife laughed out > loud. "You can always tell the engineers in any crowd," she said. > "They can't talk or think without a pen or pencil." > ... > KG The interesting case is someone who thinks multidimensionally and has artistic ability but no training in drafting. Isometric pencil drawing is also a learned skill, especially foreshortened curves. You see the same distraction and frustration when they try to sketch lets say a rocking chair they are making. My favorite CAD exercise is drawing a bolt, with realistic vee threads and chamfered edges on the head. My best time is 2 minutes. jsw
From: Cliff on 18 May 2010 08:12
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins <kb1dal(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 17, 1:26�pm, "Existential Angst" <UNfit...(a)UNoptonline.net> >wrote: >> "Jim Wilkins" <kb1...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> On May 17, 12:41 pm, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: >> > Existential Angst wrote: >> > > ... >> > > Ito of the actual function/design of mechanical parts, has anyone >> > > actually >> > > solved a "design problem" using CAD? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method >> >> Funny, how calculus (the integral) is in fact the result of FEM, in the >> limit as x --> 0, but done analytically (power rules and all that). �FEM is >> kinda like calculus in reverse, when analytic solutions are not possible. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt6Q_pVxwl0 >> >> Nice. �But I would distinguish CAD from this type of analysis/animation >> program. >> -- >> EA >> >> jsw > >Take that sample truss and adjust the element dimensions until all >areas are the same color under load. Why not just solve a fairly simple problem in Mechanics ? >I've been using electronic design CAD programs for ~25 years. >Simulation, analysis and rules checking are essential components of >them. > >jsw -- Cliff |