Machining philosophy - job plan

We are in the process of building a new machine and took a different approach than usual. In the past, we have designed each sub-system of a new machine then built it and moved onto the next subsystem. Usually our drawings have been lacking final detail leaving some of the finishing touches to be done on-the-fly and machining operation order left up to the tech. E.g..: "Remove all metal that doesn't look like this and use appropriate fasteners" or, "Make a part that fits in here and does this." Since we all have done this kind of stuff daily for years, it works. Often we build punches and dies without any drawings, just a scratch pad with math on it.

The new machine is my idea but Roger's baby and he took the new direction to design and spec. every part before chip one hit the floor. We spent many, many nights arguing about details while visualizing each component on the whiteboard and eliminating possible problems. Now, with the fourth generation of drawings and a complete build of materials including three quotes for most of the major components in the hydraulic, electrical and mechanical systems, most of the stuff has been delivered and the build is going smooth, under budget and ahead of schedule.

Some of the most important things I learned include:

-Every hour arguing on the whiteboard equals five hours of shop time. (God, I love to argue!)

-Keeping up to the minute drawings and drawing revision history control is mandatory. Burn ALL old!

-All the time spent with even supposedly perfect subsystem design will guarantee generations of improvement and simplification.

-Every machining operation planned in order, saves valuable set-up time and minimizes goof-ups

I have changed my paradigm when I came to the realization that even in the stage of the design book, I have a very valuable, salable asset. This machine makes wire wheel brushes and will be reproduced a number of times as our marked expands due to lower cost and higher quality...I already have a share and haven't been willing to expand at current costs. I can beat any domestic manufacturer in every way. I can't match Chinese labor but I can actually beat them on a cost basis due to the investment that even a Chinese firm must make to make these products. There are German machines and Italian machines commercially available at $250k, I'll have less than $10k per machine at about half the production rate, which is three times my current production rate and my current process is VERY skill dependent, the new machines can even be automated further.

I'll post some pix by our July 1 start-up date. I've been trying to come up with this process for over twenty years and it just popped into my head one day while fishing in the rain. I came back from vacation and laid out the idea to the tech staff and watched their jaws drop.

Although something feels wrong about planning machine work vs. run out there and turn bolts and cut metal, I think I'll be moving to a new level.

Reply to
Tom Gardner
Loading thread data ...

I hate to rain on anyone's parade and I'd like to see the machines as much as anyone. That said, I strongly recommend that you *don't* post them.

They are what give you a competitive advantage and you would be 100% justified in protecting the design of your machine as a trade secret.

Keeping the design of the machine secret will both slow down your competitors and will add value to your company should you decide to sell it someday. It won't cost you anything.

You should also have all your employees who have a working knowledge of the machine under non- disclosure agreements.

Reply to
Jim Stewart

what you have discovered is basic "system engineering" - what we do with large complicated systems - there are entire courses of study and methodologies on how to do this, for software, for hardware, etc. There is the notion of Architecture, which is how the functional parts come together to make the whole, there is process management, there is configuration control and change control, etc. The discipline is most formalized for software, but you can steal the abstractions from software and apply them anywhere, as you have now proven.

snip

Reply to
william_b_noble

You are on the right path. The next step is CAD design and simulation to do an even greater amount of the work well before anything has actually been built.

When I am playing around as a hobbyist I like to just jump right in and start making stuff ... but when working as an engineer one needs to go about things in an entirely different and more methodical way to really have the effort be productive.

Bravo!

John

Reply to
John Horner

Hmmm, we have seen airplanes fly successfully the first time they are tried out (latest Airbus as one example), but software never seems to really be right :(.

John

Reply to
John Horner

Congratulations, Tom!

Suggest you now give a similar level of thought to what your strategy and approach should be re intellectual property. It sounds like you have something of value and worth protecting. Don't just "make chips" as: "get everyone under NDA" or "patent this and that". The "obvious answer" is often not the best one.

Step one: please don't post anything until you've done this, and mark drawings and specs as PROPRIETARY.

It isn't rocket science, but it is worth a consult with a knowledgable person. Note: many general practice attorneys are not well-informed in this area though they may think they are. More words aren't necessarily better protection. Example: one who drafts an NDA of more than one page is the wrong person. Look for one with some credentials in this area.

Another good source may be an experienced scientist or engineer who has done R&D in a large corporation; they get plenty of good training. Credentials here would be someone with a record of successful projects and more than a couple of patents.

A next step in this direction may be judicious use of simulation tools and CAD. That's real easy to overdo, but it can be very powerful for verifying fit and function at an early stage. It can enable you to try a lot of ideas, some rather "off the wall" and many that turn out not to work, while leading to other novel ideas and inventions that were not initially apparent but work beautifully. You may have already discovered that the secret to this and to designing with a team is to first have very carefully-thought-out subsystem specs. Form doesn't matter here, content does. A subsystem spec should merely (!) state clearly and completely what the subsystem should do, what it must not do, which other subsystems it must work with and how it will interact and interface with them. On many projects my teams spent significantly more time on the internal specs than they did on actual design. Some "what if" sub-designs may be made during this phase with the understanding that they have no more status than doodles at this point. Once good specs were formed, design typically moved forward with very few glitches, no backtracking, and finished on schedule at or below budget.

Reply to
Don Foreman

We currently use 4 different packages for drawing: Solidworks, AutoCad, Design graphics and Autosketch--AutoCad's baby brother and my favorite for fast work. Roger uses the Microsoft planing package...I forget the name. Simulation is beyond our scope for now as we are really just a few steps above a hobby.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Right on target thoughts! The generational birthing of ideas begot by ideas fertilized by thoughts. I have often said that I want to build the third machine first...and now we are! We've been using CAD for years, often after the fact to document replacement parts and working systems in order to speed the rebuilding; everything wears out. I only have two more types of machines that I want to design then I'll be starting over on stuff I built already. Time to retire and greet people at Wallmart!

I'll never patent another thing. My last patent was written-up in a Russian machining publication before the ink was dry. I rely on trade secrets as my retirement plan. I discussed this machine with a domestic brush machine manufacturer (good friends) and after a rudimentary explanation, they told me it was too simple and would be "Chinese Engineered" in a heartbeat. The German machines, well, that says it all doesn't it? The Italian machines look like they kidnapped German engineers and fed them LSD and told them to design a machine.

I do have boilerplate NDA and most people involved are related. My last machine went on line last June and has now contributed over $180k to sales so far with a 30% better margin than the machine it replaced. In contrast, the last generation here bought it's last new machine in 1965, I took over in 1999 and I have built and put four new production machines on line and revamped three more.

Thanks for the thoughts!

Reply to
Tom Gardner

I have a friend who makes good money on old drawings - the company he makes parts for sends him the old drawing, he machines the part, submits it, they realize they didn't send the latest print, and he gets to make the part again, charging them for both. Good for him, bad for the company.

So yes, burn all old draw>Some of the most important things I learned include:

Reply to
Felice Luftschein and Nicholas

Agreed. You never know if there is one tiny trick that you have developed which they haven't thought of yet. This is especially true of competators in the real bottom end of the scale who are relatively non-technical...for example, very rural India where they are getting REALLY agressive.

Koz

Reply to
Koz

Just watch your process doesn't get out of control as it did in our shop, sometimes making a subsystem can replace 40 hours of arguing on the whiteboard. We have so many CAD/simulation/planning/configuration tools that it seems we are in the tool review/training business instead of the "making something" business. Also dealing with compatiblity between tools, updates, hardware to support the CAD tools and constant tool training can drag down productivity and increase overhead. We are at the point now where every goof-up now turns into time consuming meetings resulting in more tools more processes more trade studies more reviews more signatures more detailed planning in a vain attempt to predict all possible problems before they happen. A white board and autosketch sounds very nice to me!

Reply to
steve

HA! How much of the functionality of that Airbus do you think is software based? I'd bet that there are dozens of computers and hundreds of thousands of lines of code making that plane fly!

Bob

Reply to
Bob Engelhardt

You're suggesting some kind of "Balance"? Hmm... Point well taken.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

That's exactly what I meant by "real easy to overdo".

Reply to
Don Foreman

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.