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: Existential Angst on 17 May 2010 11:25 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? -- EA
From: Tim Wescott on 17 May 2010 12:41 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. I'm not sure what you mean by "geometry". I'm too cheap to use 3D cad (it gets in the way of me visualizing stuff in my head), but I've seen mechanical engineers use it to guarantee fit of multiple parts -- guy A designs part A, guy B designs parts B and C, then guy C puts them together into an assembly and finds that part C and part A overlap -- ah ha! -- and things get changed. So from that perspective, and from the perspective of being able to use it to visualize how a complicated assembly is going to go together and work -- particularly when you use animation for moving mechanism -- yes, I've seen it used for design. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
From: Jim Wilkins on 17 May 2010 13:09 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt6Q_pVxwl0 jsw
From: Existential Angst on 17 May 2010 13:19 "Tim Wescott" <tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote in message news:-uSdnc6Y7-BF7GzWnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d(a)web-ster.com... > 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. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "geometry". I'm too cheap to use 3D cad (it > gets in the way of me visualizing stuff in my head), EXACTLY!! but I've seen > mechanical engineers use it to guarantee fit of multiple parts -- guy A > designs part A, guy B designs parts B and C, then guy C puts them together > into an assembly and finds that part C and part A overlap -- ah ha! -- and > things get changed. Yeah, that's geometry.... and dotting i's, crossing t's. Not saying CAD isn't important... it sure beats trial and error at a gear indexer/hobbing machine, eh?? But the basic ideas *generally* do not require CAD -- or so it seems to me. > > So from that perspective, and from the perspective of being able to use it > to visualize how a complicated assembly is going to go together and > work -- particularly when you use animation for moving mechanism -- yes, > I've seen it used for design. As per Jim's links, I would distinguish CAD from animation/analysis programs. -- EA > > -- > Tim Wescott > Control system and signal processing consulting > www.wescottdesign.com
From: Existential Angst on 17 May 2010 13:26
"Jim Wilkins" <kb1dal(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:aab5b24b-db71-4514-ac2a-8e4332af606d(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... 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 |