Recently took the exam and passed. Now I am a Certified SolidWorks Associate!
I'd like to thank David Planchard for helping me prepare for the exam.
My personal journal and log of the bits and pieces of science and engineering in my life. Tinkers - Dedicated to my personal projects. Techies - Dedicated to analyzing real world science and engineering applications.
July 25, 2011
May 10, 2011
Techies - Summer Biking
Now that spring is in full swing, I decided to break out my bicycle to start burning away some of that winter fat. However, when I finally hit the trails, I saw that both my tires were visibly under pressured (I later found it to be at 20psi). Remembering that only a month ago, I did a Tire Pressure Lab as part of my Mech 305 course at UBC, two thoughts came to mind. For motor vehicles, the reduction in tire pressure causes the following two major concerns:
- loss of stability;
- reduction in fuel efficiency.
Shot of Vancouver from Canada Line Bridge |
The US Department of Energy claims that for every 1psi drop below the recommended tire pressure rating, gas mileage can be reduced by 0.3%1. My focus today is on fuel efficiency and how the reduction of tire pressure reduces the efficiency of my bicycle. Of course, when we’re looking at efficiency, we’re looking at energy input vs energy output. What better way to demonstrate the “feeling” of efficiency than physically being the energy input. As I powered my bicycle, I realized that I reached fatigue much sooner than I used to. At first I thought, “I must be so out of shape.” However, once I made it to a gas station and pumped up my bicycle to the proper tire pressure (between 40-60psi) I soon felt a major difference. Back on the road with optimal tire pressure and a brief break, I soon found powering my bicycle was a lot easier and that I made it home without reaching fatigue at all.
- the wheel is perfectly circular;
- there is a single point of contact;
- the wheel is rolling without slipping.
Contact Patch: Flat area of the tire that is in contact with the ground.2
Hysteresis: During the deformation of a material, the energy of deformation is great than the energy recovered when the material returns to its original state.3
Because of losses to heat, sound and other forms of waste energy, hysteresis occurs. Therefore, a loss of energy occurs. Now you might ask, "why don't we pump the tire to it's maximum so that the deformation is minimum?" There are two reasons for this4:a
- Increased stress concentrations result in increase wear at the centerline of the tire;
- high tire pressure stiffens the interface between road surface and car.
The second reason why we don't run tires at maximum pressure is more of a luxury. Thinking back to Mech 364 - Mechanical Vibrations, the wheels of the car can be thought of as a bunch of springs: the higher the pressure, the stiffer the spring, the lower the pressure, the flimsier the spring. At high stiffness, you can assume that there is no spring at all (a rigid connection). As a result, you will feel every bump and pebble that your tires roll over, which serves as a very uncomfortable ride!
References:
- US Department of Energy: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml - Retrieved April 27th, 2011.
- How Stuff Works: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tire4.htm - Retrieved April 27th, 2011
- Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance - Retrieved April 27th, 2011
- How Stuff Works: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/tire5.htm - Retrieved May 10th, 2011
May 1, 2011
3D Solid Model Samples
This edition of Tinker and Techies is going to be special. It will be updated regularly and is going to be a catalog dedicated to display 3D CAD designs I have done in the past. The purpose of this catalog is to demonstrate my ability to anyone who is interested in hiring my services as a freelance 3D Modeler or Designer. It contains a brief background, description, and the time it took to design and model. When reviewing the Design time and Model time, please keep in mind that I am a student with other commitments as well.
Thank you for your interest. Feel free to comment on any of the samples with questions, tips or even request a sample! You may also e-mail me if you are interested in employing my skills.
Thank you for your interest. Feel free to comment on any of the samples with questions, tips or even request a sample! You may also e-mail me if you are interested in employing my skills.
Labels:
Airfoil,
Card Catcher,
Design Time,
Model Time,
Multi Element,
Orbiter,
Propeller,
Splitter,
Star Wars,
Test Rig,
Tie Fighter,
Trap Door,
Valve,
Wine Rack
April 13, 2011
Tinker - Document Tray Holder
This is going to be my first Engineering blog. To celebrate such an occasion, I've decided to start off with a true story: One sunny weekend a few months ago, I was diligently finishing my homework when all of a sudden, I realized that I still had more to do! Feeling very disorganized (or possibly disoriented from all the work I was doing), I made a trip to my local office supply store and bought myself this document tray holder. I soon filled it up quickly, classifying my three available slots as "Inbox", "Outbox" and "Scrap Paper". However, as ambitious of a student as I was, this was simply not enough! Soon I began my journey to increase the overall efficiency of my document tray holder.
For all my colleagues who might read this: don't laugh; the design process they taught us at UBC was actually helpful. Having said that, let's generate some "user statements" for my mini-project:
1) The current design is good, but I wish I could put more;
2) It takes up a lot of space on a tabletop.
Honestly, I made these up on the spot as I wrote this blog, but they're pretty accurate when compared to what I was thinking when I started this project. Regardless, these user statements translated to the following requirements:
1) The product has more than 3 levels;
2) The product can compact more documents into the same amount of space.
Functional Decomposition: Really the only function this thing has is to hold documents.
Brainstorming/Design:
So here is where the fun begins. After studying the original design of the document tray, I came up with a few ideas along the lines of expanding outwards, front and back, and up and down. In order to satisfy Requirement 2), I decided to expand up and down. However, simply buying another document tray and welding the two vertically together also violates Requirement 2). I figured the end result would look something like this:
As you can see, it satisfies Requirement 1) by adding additional layers to the top and bottom of the original three and Requirement 2) by inserting these additional layers shown in the picture (although the top layer exceeds the original design's height, it's still pretty close).
So the question is, how to fit these new slots given the original placing of the shafts? From the original image up top, you can clearly see that the shafts are located as 2 at the bottom and 1 at the top, effectively stabilizing the structure by triangulation. However, the single shaft at the top cannot hold any documents (unless you are really good at balancing things and your table doesn't shake when you erase) and the two shafts at the bottom interfere with any documents you might want to put down there (the clearance was actually 1 inch). So my modifications were thus:
Remove both the shafts at the bottom, and relocate one of them to the very back support. This effectively increased the clearance under the bottom tray to 2 inches:
Remove the top shaft, and relocate both remaining shafts to acceptable extremes of the top supports. The decision to place these along the horizontal support was made to maintain the maximum height (and thus capacity) of the top tray.
The final product looks like this:
Thanks for reading! My old document tray used to hold three trays of paper labelled "Inbox", "Outbox", and "Scrap Paper". Now, my document tray holds five trays of documents labelled "Inbox", "Outbox", "Scrap Paper", "Empty Folders/Duotangs", and "Magazines I'm too lazy to read"...
For all my colleagues who might read this: don't laugh; the design process they taught us at UBC was actually helpful. Having said that, let's generate some "user statements" for my mini-project:
1) The current design is good, but I wish I could put more;
2) It takes up a lot of space on a tabletop.
Honestly, I made these up on the spot as I wrote this blog, but they're pretty accurate when compared to what I was thinking when I started this project. Regardless, these user statements translated to the following requirements:
1) The product has more than 3 levels;
2) The product can compact more documents into the same amount of space.
Functional Decomposition: Really the only function this thing has is to hold documents.
Brainstorming/Design:
So here is where the fun begins. After studying the original design of the document tray, I came up with a few ideas along the lines of expanding outwards, front and back, and up and down. In order to satisfy Requirement 2), I decided to expand up and down. However, simply buying another document tray and welding the two vertically together also violates Requirement 2). I figured the end result would look something like this:
As you can see, it satisfies Requirement 1) by adding additional layers to the top and bottom of the original three and Requirement 2) by inserting these additional layers shown in the picture (although the top layer exceeds the original design's height, it's still pretty close).
So the question is, how to fit these new slots given the original placing of the shafts? From the original image up top, you can clearly see that the shafts are located as 2 at the bottom and 1 at the top, effectively stabilizing the structure by triangulation. However, the single shaft at the top cannot hold any documents (unless you are really good at balancing things and your table doesn't shake when you erase) and the two shafts at the bottom interfere with any documents you might want to put down there (the clearance was actually 1 inch). So my modifications were thus:
Remove both the shafts at the bottom, and relocate one of them to the very back support. This effectively increased the clearance under the bottom tray to 2 inches:
Remove the top shaft, and relocate both remaining shafts to acceptable extremes of the top supports. The decision to place these along the horizontal support was made to maintain the maximum height (and thus capacity) of the top tray.
The final product looks like this:
As you can tell, my excitement in blogging this project eventually faded. That was also the same story with making this as well; there was a one month gap between completing this design and actually making it. Ultimately, I was happy with what I came up with though.
In closing, I do have future plans for another redesign, but it might only end up as bolting another tray to the top just to stabilize everything. The up side is that the first redesign reserves the foresight for that option to occur.
Thanks for reading! My old document tray used to hold three trays of paper labelled "Inbox", "Outbox", and "Scrap Paper". Now, my document tray holds five trays of documents labelled "Inbox", "Outbox", "Scrap Paper", "Empty Folders/Duotangs", and "Magazines I'm too lazy to read"...
Labels:
Document,
Holder,
Modification,
Tinker,
Tray
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)