Manufacturing guy-at-large.

From my own archives: On Content

Added on by Spencer Wright.

What follows here is excerpted from a personal email I wrote earlier this year. It remains representative of how I feel about my own content creation - reckless enthusiasm and all :)

It appears slightly edited, for formatting and privacy. 

- - -

The way I see it, there are really two types of content: curatorial and original.  

There are a *lot* of curatorial blogs. The best, e.g. Kottke, are *excellent.* The worst are just commonplacing, which is actually pretty cool. I suppose you could argue that curation in a digital age should occur in Evernote or a similar document storing platform, but at that point, who cares. It's fun to have an aesthetic perspective, and if all you do is reblog photos, what's wrong with that?

Original content is, to me, closer to the heart. I like this quote, from a recent post by Keenan Cummings:

But regardless of wherever that team and those designers might fall on the criticism-worthy spectrum, I’ve learned to not question the intentions and sincerity of anyone. It hurts my work. It makes me cynical, competitive, fickle, distracted. My heart is in the work that I do, and I do better to assume it’s the same for others.

But that's just from my perspective as a viewer - and I certainly don't mean to imply that you're any of those things.

As a creator it is - at least for me, in the point in my career - even more important that I defend shitty content. Shitty content is "a way to make your soul grow." And if you want to work in the idea economy - or, I mean *fuck,* any economy where you need half a brain to succeed - the best way to show employers/clients that you're worth their time is to: 1) be able to show them *something,* and 2) have been creating that something for long enough that you've gotten halfway decent at it.

viz., my blog.  My blog is silly - the things I write are *way* too long, and I'm too focused on creating a long argument that's based partly on something personal. I love writing this shit, but I'm still way green at it.  And if I want to work at a place like [REDACTED] - and don't I? - then I *need* to be doing it all. the. time. Or else someone else who is will get the job from under me.

With regard to the light drowning out the stars: I think it's not nearly as bad as that, you just need to believe in it. Spielberg

You shouldn’t dream your film, you should make it! If no one hires you, use the camera on your phone and post everything on YouTube. A young person has more opportunities to direct now than in my day. I’d have liked to begin making movies today.

But then again, consider who's talking. *Everything* is important to me right now, and remarkably little of it is getting looked at by anyone - let alone anyone of note. But I'm okay with that. Anonymity is good for me right now; it gives me the opportunity to make mistakes. Just give us all a year or two - once we've had a little more practice, we'll be showing *everyone.*

 

The 3D Printer version of an iPhone

Added on by Spencer Wright.

The funny thing about Jobs' 2007 iPhone keynote is that they hype-iest thing he said turned out to be absolutely true. The iPhone isn't a phone at all: it's a totally revolutionary general purpose device.  

Indeed, Jobs undersells the product. He says it's three things - an iPod, a phone, and an internet communications device. In fact, the iPhone is far more than that. It's the most general purpose user interface that we had ever seen, and one that enabled whole new categories of interaction - ones that go well beyond "internet communications."

3D printers are a wholly different animal, and they attack the problems of their industry from the opposite angle as the iPhone did. 

To me, a MakerBot is to manufacturing as Tinder is to mobile computing. The iPhone is the layer that we use to access Tinder - and hundreds of thousands of other apps. It's a platform that enables digital interaction. MakerBot is just a node in a manufacturing paradigm.

The MakerBot Replicator is a tool that can be used for a very specific purpose - laying down beads of PLA and ABS to form a physical object. All the layers above it - the CAD software used to design a part, the web interface used to share and transmit those design files, the slicer used to translate a solid file into GCode, the embedded circuits and software that the Replicator uses to interpret and execute GCode - those will be what's driving changes of massive proportion to the way we think about product development, fabrication and distribution.

I believe that the rise of 3D printing will - and has already begun to - necessitate much needed advances in general manufacturing. But it's what 3D printers are driving us towards that's the real cool shit. The printers themselves are just nodes.

Chris Anderson on Digital Manufacturing

Added on by Spencer Wright.

So, the "Seminars on Long-Term Thinking" podcast is awesome.  

Today I became engaged in a conversation about the future of manufacturing. It was in the context of my parts organizer spiel, which I tend to think (self importantly) is the basis of one aspect of a revolution of how we manage data on physical objects. My interlocutor - with a totally healthy degree of skepticism - questioned the breadth of what I was suggesting (which, dear reader, you're just going to have to imagine for now - I don't have the energy to describe it in full here). He pointed to the required complexity of a unifying theory for parts management, and asked to the basic premise that a single standard for parts data was necessary or useful. It was a totally fair line of reasoning, and one which I defended myself against in a marginal way at best.

It was a pure coincidence, then, that I returned home and listened to an excellent talk given by Chris Anderson about digital manufacturing. I'll skip right to the chase here: Anderson begins by describing the NUMMI factory, which was jointly run by GM and Toyota from 1984-2010, when it closed due to market pressure and disputes between its owners. What follows below are Anderson's words (emphasis is mine; photos are from google images):

That was ten, twelve years ago. And then Tesla bought that factory...for a song, and put in place another factory. This is what the Tesla factory looks like:

What you're seeing there looks superficially the same. You're once again seeing machines making cars. But the difference is that the NUMMI machines were custom - each machine did one job. And they were extremely hard to program, and very inflexible, and once you got the whole factory up and running, you didn't want to change it - you just churned it out, one after another. And every machine was different. The welding machines were different from the painting machines which were different from the stamping machines which were different from the sewing machines and the testing machines and the wheel-applying machines, etc.
What you're seeing [at the Tesla factory] is that all of the machines are the same. These are Kuka robotic arms, from Germany...but the point is that they are general purpose robots. Every car can be different. And today, the American car [factories], they could be making washing machines on the same line. These robot arms have these racks of different tool heads, and they can change their functions simply by going and grabbing a different tool, so they can be a welding robot or a bolting robot or a door-closing robot or a wheel-applying robot. And there is hardly a person to be seen on the floor.
What looks like a subtle difference - single purpose, specialized robots vs. general purpose robots - is actually transformative, because fundamentally what this allows is flexibility. And flexibility, I'm going to argue, is the key winning factor of the 21st century. Because flexibility allows you to move faster, it allows you to operate in smaller batches, and it allows you to personalize. Every Tesla can be different...So this is what digital manufacturing looks like on the industrial scale, and that's why this era of automation is different from the other ones.

Anderson goes on to discuss - with infectious enthusiasm - the Maker Movement, distributed fabrication, and his expectations for how manufacturing, creativity, and product development will change in the 21st century. I highly recommend his full talk. 

The net effect, though, is this: We need - and I plan on spending as much of my career as possible addressing - more general purpose solutions to the problems associated with hardware development and manufacturing.  

My focus on general purpose technologies is a large contributing factor to my wariness about the hype surrounding 3D printing. 3D printing is not a general purpose technology. And every bit of energy spent working on producing a better 3D printer just distracts from the tools that I believe will truly revolutionize hardware development and distribution. We need broader, more powerful tools - tools which interface with all manner of manufacturing processes, and which designers and consumers alike can plug directly into. 

The pieces are all here. 3D CAD has trickled down to all manner of consumers. Prototyping tools abound as well - and here I mean not some crappy FDM machine, but services like Rapid Machining and Shapeways. Distribution platforms are there as well, from Shapeways to Kickstarter to Etsy. 

What's needed now is to unite these all with a single layer. When all of these platforms speak the same language - and when Makers, designers, and consumers learn to do the same - then the third industrial revolution will begin to take shape.

Saving this for later

Added on by Spencer Wright.

I've got some thoughts about this tweet, by Tindie's Emile Petrone. I'll come back to it later.

In related news, I'm looking forward to visiting the Maker's Faire tomorrow - and not for the dime-a-dozen FDM printers :) 

The effect of total bullshit

Added on by Spencer Wright.

This week I somehow came across the Seminars About Long Term Thinking podcast, and listened to an episode with the psychologist Daniel Kahneman. At one point in the discussion, he mentioned a study by Paul Rozin that investigated the effect that placing a label saying "cyanide" on a bottle had on participants' willingness to drink the contents inside.

The results of the study, copied here from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology under the title "Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust and Other Domains" (emphasis is mine):

Cyanide label-1. In this procedure, we ascertain whether the label "sodium cyanide" imparts its quality to the substance it labels...Subjects returned to their seat at the table and were presented with two brown glass 500ml "chemical" bottles, each about one-quarter filled with a white powder, which was, in fact, sucrose. One had a typed label on it that said "Sucrose (Table sugar)," the other had a typed label that said "Sodium Cyanide" with a red printed "Poison" sticker below it. The experimenter said:
"Here we have two bottles with powder in them. The powder in both bottles is sucrose, that is, table sugar. These are brand new bottles that we just bought. They never had anything in them but sugar. This bottle (on the subjects' left) has a sucrose label that we put on it. It's a brand new label, that was never on any other bottle. This other bottle (on the subjects' right) has a brand new sodium cyanide label on it. This label was never on any other bottle and was never even near cyanide. Remember, sugar is in both bottles."
The experimenter set out two different colored plastic cubs, one in front of each bottle, and poured water from a glass pitcher into both, until they were about half full. Now, using separate, new plastic spoons for each bottle, the experimenter put a half spoonful of powder from the "sugar" bottle into one cup, and stirred it. The spoon was discarded, and the same was done with the sugar in the cyanide bottle, with a new spoon. The subject then rated, on the 200mm line, how much he would like to drink from each of the cups, and stated a preference between the two. The subject was then asked to take a sip of the sugar water from the preferred cup, and subsequently to account for his or her choice.
Cyanide label-2. We thought avoidance of the cyanide-labeled bottle might be motivated by doubts about the real contents of the bottle (though it seems absurd that the experimenter woudl try to poison the subject by offering a poison-labeled bottle). For this reason, in the second sequence, the subject himself labels the bottles. Initially, we performed this second test only for subjects who indicated a substantial preference for the sugar-labeled bottle's contents. The last 20 subjects, however, were run on this procedure independent of their results on the first sequence. The total N for the second procedure was 38; that is, 12 subjects were eliminated on the basis of their performance on the first cyanide test.
Previously used bottles and glasses were taken away, and two similar, empty bottles were brought out. The covers were removed, and sugar from a 5-lb box of locally sold "Domino" sugar (sucrose) was poured into each bottle (to a level of about one-third full). The subject was then given two peel off labels on a piece of paper. On read "Sucrose (table sugar)," the other read "Sodium Cyanide." (Through an error, this cyanide label did not have a red "Poison" sticker affixed to it.) The subject was asked to put one label on each bottle, in any way he wanted. Then, the procedure used for Cyanide Label 1 was repeated (mixing sugar water, rating of both solutions, indicating a preference, and sipping the preferred solution). 
...
The sugar labeled as "Sucrose" was preferred to the sugar labeled as "Sodium Cyanide" by 41 of 50 subjects (p < .001). The mean difference between the cyanide- and sugar-label ratings was -30.58 (p < .001). When asked to explain their choice, the most common responses were reference to the label, and no response. Only 1 subject suggested the possibility that there might be cyanide in the cyanide-labeled bottle. The second cyanide manipulation, in which the subject put the labels on herself, showed a much smaller but still significant effect, with a net difference of 16.5 points between cyanide and sugar.
 

 

Wild.

This reminds me of the anchoring effect, described famously by Tversky and Kahneman in 1974 (nb. I was aware of this study previously - it comes up a lot in the literature on negotiation - but certainly couldn't have told you who the authors were. Before setting out to write this post, Kahneman's name would have meant nothing to me.). From their paper, "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases" (emphasis is mine):

Insufficient adjustment. In a demonstration of the anchoring effect, subjects were asked to estimate various quantities, stated in percentages (for example, the percentage of African countries in the United Nations). For each quantity, a number between 0 and 100 was determined by spinning a wheel of fortune in the subjects' presence. The subjects were instructed to indicate first whether that number was higher or lower than the value of the quantity, and then to estimate the value of the quantity by moving upward or downward from the given number. Different groups were given different numbers for each quantity, and these arbitrary numbers had a marked effect on estimates. For example, the median estimates of the percentage of African countries in the United Nations were 25 and 45 for groups that received I0 and 65, respectively, as starting points. Payoffs for accuracy did not reduce the anchoring effect. 

Studies like these are totally fascinating to me, and have the effect of reinforcing the skepticism that I am inclined to approach all statements which lack some method of independent verification. I also try to remain aware of the danger of taking self-reported data at face value: In my experience, people (including myself) are notoriously bad at knowing what's going on in their own heads.

For the intrepid among you, there's a bunch of great throwaways on anchoring on its wikipedia page. An excerpt:

Even when the anchor value is obviously random or extreme, it can still contaminate estimates. One experiment asked subjects to estimate the year of Albert Einstein's first visit to the United States. Anchors of 1215 and 1992 contaminated the answers just as much as more sensible anchor years. Other experiments asked subjects if the average temperature in San Francisco is more or less than 558 degrees, or whether there had been more or fewer than 100,025 top ten albums by The Beatles. These deliberately absurd anchors still affected estimates of the true numbers.

Insane. It's worth stating explicitly that, when entering into negotiation, one should be acutely aware - and wary - of anchoring strategies. 

Patents are insane.

Added on by Spencer Wright.

I got sucked in a little today looking at Google Patents. It's really cool to find a design and then look at all the patents filed by the designer. Weirder still if the company is one that makes a product you hold in high regard, viz. LH Thomson, the contract machine shop and venerable manufacturer of bicycle hardware. 

On the one hand, Thomson owns an incredibly broad patent for "Object clamp, such as for bicycle component, having at least one relief area and related methods." This would appear to cover not only any split tube clamp, including those on bicycle stems & seatpost clamps (as the patent describes), but also almost any accessory that attaches to a tube, anywhere (disclaimer: I am not an expert in patent law). See fig. 33, below:

If I'm reading this correctly, it's saying that if your split tube clamp has one bore which is of a slightly larger diameter than the diameter of the part you're clamping to, your part is covered by Thomson's patent - at least until 2021, which (I believe) is when it runs out. 

On the other, Thomson owns a patent for "Bicycle rider hand attachment and cooperating gear shift actuator and associated methods" that is batshit crazy. The basic idea is that of a gripshifter, but Thomson's version requires the user to wear one of many medieval glove-like contraptions, which interface with the shifter itself. See fig. 15, below:
 

It should be noted that this is exactly as crazy as it looks - disjointed thumb and all. Or see fig. 6, which installs a shaft onto the rider's hand, to interface with some handlebar-mounted shifting device:

So yeah, anyway: Patents are insane. Are these inventions useful? Are they worth protecting? Is the value of their protection greater - to either LH Thomson or the greater society at large - than the value of open sourcing them? I don't claim to have an answer, but I would be interested to hear arguments for the pro side - it seems a bit specious. 

Paul Graham on Formidibility

Added on by Spencer Wright.

Anyone who's randomly reading my blog and doesn't know Paul Graham should just stop now. His subject matter is both focussed and applicable to a wide variety of situations; his ideas are poignant; and his manner of presentation is perfectly tailored.  From his "How to Convince Investors" piece, posted 2013.08 (emphasis mine):

The most important ingredient is formidable founders. Most investors decide in the first few minutes whether you seem like a winner or a loser, and once their opinion is set it's hard to change. Every startup has reasons both to invest and not to invest. If investors think you're a winner they focus on the former, and if not they focus on the latter. 
...
There is a role for ideas of course. They're fuel for the fire that starts with liking the founders. Once investors like you, you'll see them reaching for ideas: they'll be saying "yes, and you could also do x." (Whereas when they don't like you, they'll be saying "but what about x?")
But the foundation of convincing investors is to seem formidable, and since this isn't a word most people use in conversation much, I should explain what it means. A formidable person is one who seems like they'll get what they want, regardless of whatever obstacles are in the way. Formidable is close to confident, except that someone could be confident and mistaken. Formidable is roughly justifiably confident.
There are a handful of people who are really good at seeming formidable—some because they actually are very formidable and just let it show, and others because they are more or less con artists. But most founders, including many who will go on to start very successful companies, are not that good at seeming formidable the first time they try fundraising. What should they do?
What they should not do is try to imitate the swagger of more experienced founders. Investors are not always that good at judging technology, but they're good at judging confidence. If you try to act like something you're not, you'll just end up in an uncanny valley. You'll depart from sincere, but never arrive at convincing.

Five Whys: TCD

Added on by Spencer Wright.

In 2006, I had just graduated from college and was making a decent income doing construction management in Northern California. But I was socially isolated and looking for something to occupy a particular part of my energy, and so began accumulating the skills, knowledge and tooling required to build bicycle frames. 

When the renovation I was working on was completed, I felt a desperate need for change. I moved back East and tried, for three years, to build a framebuilding business. It was a formative part of my career, but in the end I left it behind me. Although it has remained a fond period of my life, I have struggled to integrate the lessons I learned from it into my life - and to understand the many lessons I never learned in the first place.

In an effort to accelerate and document my struggles, I've been wanting to perform a Five Whys postmortem on my short lived career as a framebuilder. I choose the Five Whys method not because I think it's the most effective, but because it's an interesting format, and one that I hope will constrain and guide my explorations - which otherwise might tend to ramble - a bit. A disclaimer: I'm new to this method, so stick with me a little.

Round one.

My framebuilding business failed. Why?

Because I gave up on it.

Why?

Because I was offered a position doing work that I considered more engaging, interesting and lucrative. 

Why?

Because I had put myself in a position in which I was moderately qualified for a position setting up a prototyping shop for a small- to mid-sized company that was not expert in prototyping mechanical assemblies, and I happened (by pure luck and fortitude) to be related to two key people who ran such a company.

Why? 

Because my primary interest in building my business was to develop effective methods of developing and producing interesting products, and I had organized my business to optimize my ability to do so.  

Why?

Because I wanted to be compensated for my ability to analyze problems and come up with effective solutions to them, and I wanted my medium to be physical products. And the prototyping and short-run production oriented machine shop that I built for my business fit those goals nicely.

Round Two. 

I gave up on my framebuilding business. Why?

Because I misunderstood, on a basic level, the degree to which my professional interests would be fulfilled by a career building custom bicycle frames. 

Why? 

My experience working on bikes in college was collaborative (I co-managed a nonprofit cooperative bike shop), and gave me an incredible opportunity to solve problems (I started working there at a highly transitional time in the business, which had slipped, in many ways, into organizational chaos). I cared deeply about the entity - both as a business and as a social venue - and I conflated my enjoyment of these two things into one.

Why? 

I think the implicit assumption I was making was that I was starting a brand that would be cool, and that cool people would be drawn to it and want to work with me. 

Why? 

Because I was naive? I suppose the better question here is: Why weren't they drawn to me? The answer is largely that I wasn't proactive about getting my message out there - I wasn't writing, barely had a website, and didn't like hanging out in bike shops or with many bike people.

Why? 

A lot of it was insecurity, no doubt. I had this idea that I wanted to be putting out a product that was fully baked, and I kept waiting for the day where I thought that what I was doing was good enough to pimp in a real way. That day eventually came, but not until I had exhausted my ability/willingness to stick through it alone, not to mention my desire to continue financing my career on debt.

Round three. 

On at least a few levels, I didn't get what I wanted out of my framebuilding career. Why? 

There are a bunch of ways to answer that question, but the most prescient approach would seem to be one that considers the present state of my career. I am, by any reasonable definition, unemployed; and yet it's likely that I'm happier with the state and direction of my life than I have been since (at least) I left college. At the same time, I can't help but feel that I didn't make the most of my time, money, and efforts between 2008 and 2011 (the period of time where framebuilding was my sole occupation).

Why? 

Well, the money I spent during that period is kind of inexcusable. I was - and remain - fond of referring to it as "my MBA," and it did teach me a lot about running a small business. But the truth of it is that I could have been much more focussed on what I wanted to learn. I made only small pivots during that three year period. Mostly, I struggled through the hardships that I was putting myself through - an experience I hope not to repeat. 

Why? 

I struggled through it because I didn't know what else to do. And because I had a particular idea of myself and my career goals. 

Why?  

Because I was short sighted, and wasn't capable of taking a long-term/objective oriented view of my life. 

Why? 

Because despite my deep belief in big things like happiness, reason and critical thinking, I couldn't see past the things that I had romanticized for so many years: design, physical product, and the value of engaging in an industry that is believed - by some, at least - to be environmentally friendly.

Roundup. 

Well, I'm not totally sure what that tells me - or you, dear reader. I look back at myself during those years as being unreasonably idealistic (it's likely I inflate my idealism, FWIW), but most importantly I held basic misunderstandings about what it is that I value. I'm sure many of these persist (I've become fond, recently, of telling near-strangers that "my career is way existential these days"), and I accept them for what they are - a basic quality of the human condition. At the same time, I hope and try to enrich my understanding of what it is that makes me happiest, and when I find that thing, I do not plan on struggling with some romantic notion of craftsmanship in lieu of pursuing it.

Feature Requirements: Parts Storage System

Added on by Spencer Wright.

Parts storage has been a key aspect of my product development career, and has consistently frustrated me. A few reasons for my ire:

  • Parts cabinets are expensive. I probably spent $200 on my cabinets, which were mostly used; at my last employer, we spent over $2K on "standard duty" parts drawers, shown here, from McMaster-Carr.
  • Traditional parts organizers are time consuming to organize, and often aren't formatted to hold the size and quantity of parts you need to store.
  • Most management systems don't allow for reorganization without significant amounts of work.
  • Every organization & labeling system I'm aware of is disconnected from the part specs that I usually want to have on-hand when making a selection from physical inventory.
  • Keeping a digital catalog of parts inventory on-hand is time consuming, difficult, and totally disconnected from the location and quantity of the parts themselves. 

In order for the full implications of digital product development, manufacturing and distribution to come to pass, I believe that industry will need to completely rethink how it addresses, organizes, processes and tracks parts inventory. I have a few ideas of what this will look like, but I'd like for now to focus on the requirements for such a system. 

  • Parts should be uniquely addressable. For many of my applications, McMaster-Carr, DigiKey, Sparkfun, and Amazon product numbers would be fine. Ultimately a system like IP would probably be preferable, if only to apply uniformity and allow manufacturers and distributors of all flavors to buy into a single standard. At some point, I wonder about the possibility of addressing not only each brand/make/spec of bolt, resistor, or chip - but also addressing each physical instance of each of those categories. With the enormous addressing capacity of IPv6, this is well within the realm of possibility - we simply need to find an appropriate tracking mechanism. (Side note: IPv6 has an addressing capacity of about 3.4*10^38. In comparison, there are estimated to be on the order of 7.5*10^18 grains of sand on all the beaches in the world. That's a ratio of 4.5*10^19 : 1, in favor of IPv6 addresses.)
  • Physical organization shouldn't need to be hierarchical. Hierarchical systems work fine on dynamic interfaces (e.g. on the web, where they're used in conjunction with tagging and search features), but parts organization is subject to so many other forces - not the least of which is the size and quantity of a given type of item. For example: if the bolts I have on hand vary in length from 5mm to 50mm, finding a single drawer to accommodate all of them will be difficult. Much better to allow locational organization to be loose, and instead encourage browsing through a database. Put a different way: I don't see the need to institute a browsable Dewey Decimal system on my parts; I'll just search for them on my computer, and it'll tell me where I should look.
  • Parts on hand should be treated as a subset of parts in the world. When I'm designing a new assembly and searching for a bolt to use in it, I want to access a single interface that will allow me to search either globally (the entire catalog of uniquely addressable parts in the world), from a single manufacturer/distributor, or only from my in-stock catalog. On the other hand, when I'm physically looking at a particular item in my inventory, I should have easy access to the product specs for replacement parts and compatible mating parts. 
  • Inventory should be tracked in real time. When I remove parts from physical inventory, my database of stocked components should be updated immediately. As sensor technology evolves, it is my hope that this will be possible with minimal user interaction (e.g. via the use of pressure, proximity, or chemical presence sensors within the parts cabinet). In the meantime, the parts cabinet itself (or at the very least a nearby iPad running dedicated software) should offer me the ability to quickly update quantity on hand.
  • Complete part data should be available at the part's physical location. If I'm browsing for a bolt, I should be able to have access to all available part data for that bolt - including specifications, tolerances, 3D models, compatible mates, replacements - right at the parts cabinet. For now, this could be achievable by some user gesture at the parts cabinet (e.g. pressing a tactile switch at the individual part compartment) pushing a notification to a nearby iPad. As interaction hardware evolves, I would hope that this would happen within the parts organizer itself, through the use of haptic/gestural info (picking a part out of a bin) and integrated displays.
  • My purchasing system should know what parts I have on hand. When I order parts, it's almost exclusively through webstores. When I hit the "confirm your order" page, I want my inventory tracking software to scan for similar parts in my database and alert me if I've got anything in stock that would work for what I'm doing. If I'm ordering M4x12 button head cap screws and I have M4x12 socket head cap screws in stock, it's possible that I could save time, money, and inventory space by redesigning my assembly to accept what I have in stock. Conversely: When I place an order, my inventory system should know about it and prepare my parts organizer to accept new inventory.
  • Everything should have a 3D model. This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. It blows my mind that many PCBs are designed without a digital visual check for interferences, and the situation is even crazier when you consider integrating PCBs into mechanical assemblies. I've spent a lot of time modeling off-the-shelf components for my own use, and have begun posting them on GrabCAD  for others to use. It's my hope that this type of thing catches on, and that manufacturers find ways to support/help the effort.
  • No paper. My previous parts organizers relied heavily on sticky notes and Sharpies, as I suspect most contemporary systems do. This is absurd. What happens when you run through stock of a particular part, and decide not to reorder? Well, you spend ten minutes scraping a crusty old label off of the bin, or taping over it with a new one. Adhesives fail over time, and pen-and-paper just isn't modular enough for the rapid changes in direction that modern product development shops go through. My bins should be unlabeled. Instead, I'll identify parts by comparing them to their 3D models (viewable in my parts organizer's interactive display), or - better  yet - by my parts organizer knowing what I'm doing (through whatever gestural interaction it uses) and telling me what I'm looking at.

What I've described here is huge, but not that conceptually complex. It also has the capacity to be expanded recursively, to apply to all kinds of physical and digital objects. A cohesive, consistent system for tracking and managing parts will allow for improvements in innovation and distribution techniques to reach their full potential. And I worry that without such a system, the benefits of rapid prototyping, just-in-time manufacturing, and distributed, adaptive supply chains will be highly constrained.

Seth Godin on Bookstores

Added on by Spencer Wright.

All things being equal, I'd prefer to have some romance in my life.  But I have a really hard time with people who insist on gushing about books.  Eulogizing the publishing industry reminds me of something Matthew Yglesias wrote recently

You've heard a lot over the past 10 to 15 years about the crisis of American journalism, but it's actually been a crisis for American journalists.

Seth Godin's recent blog post ("An End of Books," 2013.08.15) strikes much the tone I would want to use regarding book publishing (emphasis is mine):

None of these changes, by themselves, are enough to kill a venerable information delivery and cultural touchstone like the book. But all of them together? I’m writing this on a train filled with educated, upper income suburban commuters of all genders and ethnicities (book buyers, until recently). I can see 40 people at a glance, and 34 are using electronic devices, two are asleep and exactly one person is reading a traditional book.
Yes, we're entering a new golden age for books, one with more books and ebooks being written and read today than ever before. No, books won’t be completely eliminated, just as vinyl records are still around (a new vinyl store is opening in my little town). But please don’t hold your breath for any element of the treasured ecosystem to return in force.
Is it traitorous to my tribe to write these words? I'm not arguing that we should push the ecosystem out the door, but I am encouraging us to not spend too much time trying to save it. First, it's a losing battle, but more important, we have bigger opportunities right in front of us.
...
I fear that our cultural and corporate connections to books as a delivery system may blind us to the alternatives.

I think this is a great perspective to have. 

More modeling

Added on by Spencer Wright.

For reasons I won't go into right now, I spent some time today modeling a Thomson seatpost. It's a fun little project, and one that involves some weird intersecting surfaces. I definitely got some good use out of my radius gage set, and even plunked down to get a new one that goes up to 1" (mine, a Brown & Sharpe set that I got from an old machinist, is 1/32"-1/2"). 

 

My measuring station. 

While I'm excited to check out the new 3D scanners soon (I'm hoping this weekend's Maker Faire will have a couple), manually measuring and modeling something like this is pretty fun. It's interesting to think about the way the geometries work. A Thomson seatpost consists of three main parts, which take a number of manufacturing techniques:

  • The post is made from an oblong extrusion. Its OD looks like a circle with a lobe on the front and back, and its ID is an ellipse with its short axis oriented front-back. After being extruded, it's turned down to its finished diameter and milled to accept the saddle cradle and hardware. I'm guessing that both of these operations happen in a cool multiaxis turning center, but they could just as well be done in separate setups.
  • The lower cradle is forged. I believe it's also machined, though only on one side and probably just one or two passes. 
  • The top cradle (not shown - I still need to model it) is also forged. I believe the bolt slots are then machined, and of course the Thomson logo is laser etched after anodization. 

The hardware is made by a combination of forging, cold thread forming, turning, and machining. It's also all hardened. 

Thomson is a badass manufacturing company. I'm excited to finish this portion of my modeling, which amounts to describing the parts they engineered, and move onto the really cool part - screwing with all of it.

Modeling for SLA

Added on by Spencer Wright.

I spent a little while today optimizing my dummy headset for 3D printing. In subtractive manufacturing, cost can often be estimated by calculating the difference between the mass of the raw material and the mass of the finished object. The more material you need to remove, the more fabrication time and resources you'll consume producing the part, and hence the more expensive (generally) it will be.  

The cost structure of 3D printing is totally different. With additive techniques, cost is a largely a function of the mass of the finished object (envelope size also has an effect in production settings, but it's less critical). The cost of a part comes down to how long it takes to make, and production time is limited by the amount of material the machine can spit out in a period of time. 

As I noted the other day, my dummy headset is a bit more expensive than I'd like it to be. On the upside, though, I can remove material in a bunch of places! I took the revolved part in Inventor and made a series of revolved cuts on the ID of the part. I left some ribs along the ID to keep the perimeter somewhat intact, and left the areas right around the set screw holes thick. 

Shown before I mirrored the cuts onto the top side of the part. 

I was able to shave a *lot* of mass off the parts - more than 45% on the lower part - which means significant cost savings. 

Shapeways' volume/price breakdown.

I still need to make sure I'm on the right track on clearances in a few locations,  but cutting the extra material out should make these parts much more feasible. Keep in mind, my total development cost at this point is probably 2.5 hours of labor and $40 in parts. Were I trying to get this product to market quickly (and who knows, I may try doing so) I could be live in both Shapeways' - and my own - webstore within two weeks.

Even though I've just been playing with it for a half hour, it's pretty cool seeing my model live on the site.

Another 3D Printed thing: Dummy Chris King Headset

Added on by Spencer Wright.

I can't justify the cost on this, but with some small modifications I could print a lot of them before I hit the price of the molds I'd need to injection mold them. 

Okay, the color's a little off. I'm working on it ;)

Most framebuilders, and a lot of bike shops, will have a frameset (that's frame and fork, for the uninitiated) around the shop for some time before the headset is ready to be installed. Optimally, they're able to be kept together and protected - both from things around the shop and from each other - and the natural solution is to temporarily install the fork in the head tube. For a variety of reasons, though, you don't always want to install a headset just yet, and in those cases it's useful to have a dummy that approximates the size and shape of the headset that you're eventually going to use.

When I was building bikes, I made a batch of dummy headsets out of aluminum on my lathe. It was a fun project, but it took a while and the finished thing didn't look at all like the headsets (usually Chris King) that I was installing on the bikes when they were done. Moreover, a lot of small time builders either don't have access to a lathe or don't have the time/energy/gumption to build dummy headsets themselves.  

So I spent an hour or two and modeled this one. It's a damn close copy to a King 1-1/8" NoThreadSet, but SLA printed. I included two holes in the top "cup" that I'll tap out and install set screws in. When the dummy is installed on the frameset, the set screws can be tightened down to keep the whole thing together. Because the dummy is plastic, it won't mar the frame, and because it's dimensionally accurate, it could be used to mock up the steering column for use in rack building, component setup, etc.

I need to make a few small changes to reduce printing mass, but in the meantime the design files for these parts are all in a GitHub repo. If I can find a way to get the cost down a bit, I'm hoping to put them up for sale for other folks to use; drop me a line if you're interested. 

What I want my sailboat to tell me.

Added on by Spencer Wright.

I only own a racing dinghy - a standard Laser - but I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the challenges of owning a midsized racer/cruiser. I'm thinking in particular about boats in the 25-50 foot range, whose owners who use them for recreation only. In my experience, a boat can become just like a second house - except that you don't live there, and a lot of what you do when you're there is maintain it. It's also particularly difficult to monitor, though with improvements in wireless technology and low-power sensor networks, there are a lot of opportunities in this space.

There are currently a few services for monitoring boat status. Siren Marine's products are especially cool, offering position/geofencing alerts, bilge activity, temperature battery monitoring, and basic security features - all accessible from an iOS app. BoatMonitor offers mooring/anchorage geofencing alerts too, though their system requires a smartphone or tablet to be left powered on onboard the boat. Gost Global offers what appears to be a robust marine security system, aimed specifically at protection from theft.

Of the three, Siren comes closest to what I would want: A full marine monitoring suite which treats a boat like Nest treats a home. In addition to what Siren, BoatMonitor and Gost give me, I would want access to the level of every consumable (fuel, water, cooking gas) onboard; a variety of exterior environmental monitors; detailed data on bilge and sump pump usage; a variety of sensor data from the living cabin; and the ability to trigger any number of onboard instruments and functions from a remote location. If you'll excuse the "x for y" analogy, it's Canary for your boat. Here, in more detail:

  • Quantity of available drinking water
  • Quantity of available fuel
  • Quantity of available cooking fuel (LPG)
  • Waste holding tank status
  • Boat bearing
  • Wind direction/speed
  • Barometric pressure
  • Wave height
  • GPS location (optimally via GPS RTK
  • Cabin temperature
  • Cabin humidity (taken in multiple locations to isolate potential leaks/open hatches)
  • Presence of fuel in the bilge
  • Presence of microbes in the bilge
  • Sound level in the cabin
  • Vibration on the mast/shrouds (useful for detecting rigging failure) 
  • Vibration on the hull (useful for detecting that the boat has run aground/been struck by another vessel) 
  • Cabin entry monitoring
  • Remote circuit breaker control
  • Most recent bilge/sump pump activity & duration
  • Bilge/sump water level

Most of these factors I'd want current and historical data on, so I could see, for instance, a sharp spike in cabin humidity due to a leak. I'd also insist that the entire system be self sustaining via solar cells or wind power - there's too much of each of those for me to be draining my batteries to power a couple of sensors and a GSM antenna.

I'm hoping to be working more on this system in the coming months, and will update my progress as I do.