Is software a tool ?

> Does anyone programme in assembler any more?

There's a few of us here! I know Les has been using assembler on his digital scale interface, and I think Andrew has done a bit.

Surely a Fortan compiler is simple? It just outputs "SYNTAX ERR0R" regardless of whatever you put into it.

Neil

Edited By Stub Mandrel on 12/01/2014 17:21:52

A lot of interesting replies and some great food for thought. I too had a Tandy TRS80 and one of the first things I did with it was turn a motor on and off...my parents were mortified, having spent a fortune on this curious beast that their son was then sticking old bits of wire into the back of...

The definition of a tool as something that does you harm if you misuse it is a good one! I think that most of the errors made in engineering or indeed other fields can be attributed to using the wrong tool or using the tool wrong. Time for my own bit of preamble.

Computers and software considered in isolation are tools I think. That said, they are much like a lathe chuck sitting on the bench, which does not truly come into its own until fixed to the lathe spindle. Once the computer has software running on it it becomes the most formidable tool of all. Dr. Alan Turing, widely regarded as the father of digital computing and the software approach, wrote these words in 1948:-

"We do not need to have an infinity of different machines doing different jobs. A single one will suffice. The engineering problem of producing various machines for various jobs is replaced by the office work of 'programming' the universal machine to do these jobs."

Turing's term for computer at this time was "universal machine". During this period a computer was more commonly known as a mathematician, often a girl, employed to carry out long and tedious calculations.

The computer as we know it has gone on to become the universal machine of Turing's dream. This universal machine can be loaded with all sorts of software to do all manner of jobs. And many of them are of interest to us as engineers.

Back in the real world again, I would agree that big expensive CAD packages like Autocad or Solid Works aren't really fertile grounds for magazine articles. The same goes for CNC conversions, up to a point. If someone is building a system that uses, say, a PIC microcontroller as the brains, then the hex code for this could be downloaded fairly easily from this site. There is no need for long lists of code. Many of the electronics magazines feature PICs and downloadable code is the norm. And yes, assembler is still used for these devices, in some cases.

As I mentioned earlier there is a lot of useful engineering software out there for free download. The vast majority of it comes from reputable sites and sources, often equipment manufacturers. The core mathematical principle used in the algorithm is usually given, so you can see how it "does what it does".

I have already given the example of a little executable I use that gives nominal bore pipe data. I am interested in building liquid fuelled rocket engines (I take the ME because I have a fiendish plot to put a traction engine into low earth orbit) and I have an excellent programme called Rocket Propulsion Analysis (RPA). This enables me to input a fuel and oxidiser combination and nozzle parameters to get ideal and estimated specific impulse, mixture ratio, estimated efficiency and even the hot gas constituent species. All stuff that I can calculate but which takes time.

I appreciate the examples I've given are a bit specialist but there are many others out there that are far more generic. It would be nice to hear about them in the mag and maybe have a small review, even half a page. Of course there is likely to be software developed by individual subscribers that might be of use to others and this too could be shared.

As an aside, I have a Drummond treadle lathe coming my way in a few weeks time that needs some TLC. Now if I can just strap it across the front of an armchair....

Posted by Carl Wilson 4 on 12/01/2014 17:34:20I take the ME because I have a fiendish plot to put a traction engine into low earth orbit)

Make that a Choo choo and I'm in.......................

.

John,

If I am right in guessing that you are thinking of Gearotic, then I would be very interested in reading an article. ... Especially if you could concentrate upon its abilities with traditional gears and clock-wheels, rather than the decorative exotica that features highly in the advertising.

MichaelG.

.

Edit: corrected hinking to thinking, and whels to wheels

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 12/01/2014 18:57:34

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 12/01/2014 19:01:32

Exactly the sort of thing I have been talking about.

I'm inclined to think there are only five or so CAD programs that are within practical reach of the hobbyist because of their price and so this ignores the free stuff that's available, much of which is good, but having said that, I've never come across a free 3D CAD that seriously challenges the ones I mention next.

Versions of Alibre, ViaCAD, TurboCAD, MoI and one or two others, can be had at reasonable rates for us to enjoy and whilst some are easier to use than others, they will get the job done and usually in quite similar ways.

Many CAD functions are similar to what we do in engineering and that's why there are tools to extrude, lathe, bevel and cut etc.

3D CAD can become easier to use when the penny finally drops and it's understood that by joining several a few shapes such as spheres and cubes and then slicing bits off them with straight or curved lines we are copying what we do in the workshop with our lathes, mills and welders. It can get more complicated, but a surprising amount of work can be done with these simple steps.

Anyone wanting to get a good understanding of 3D CAD should have a good long read of the MoI website forum. The developer, Michael Gibson (who incidentally wrote Rhino), goes to great lengths to explain how and why tools should be used in a particular way. I learned that all the 'solid' surfaces are derived from what are basically rectangular shapes that are pushed and stretched (mathematically) into more complex shapes - including spheres and made me more aware of what shapes were practical to make by certain methods.

Martin.

Good point Martin,

As you say quite a few affordable ones.

Has anyone tried the free one distributed by RS ? I gather it's a cut down version of Space Claim which is a very expensive 3D package

I think software is a tool, and I feel I do not know enough about it. From my perspective at my age and with a fully equipped workshop, I think I would be unlikely to change my equipment and learn CAM, there is a steep learning curve for me, as I never used this in my working life. I would prefer to be cutting metal than spending the time I know would be needed to move up the curve. That said, I am still interested in what can be done and how it is done in general terms. I do use CAD though, and used Dos based Generic Cad for quite a while, (anyone remember that?), and then Virtual Cad, and dabbled with AutoCAD. Now I am dabbling with TotalCad. A good general piece on the pros and cons of the various CAD offerings would be useful. I use Office and Excel, but what other software is worth considering?. I also read posts where various different operating systems are mentioned in passing like Linux and Ubuntu (?). I would welcome a piece giving the pros and cons and experiences of these systems as well. It is obvious the knowledge is there amongst our ranks, and some basic information and how this is applied would be of interest to me, as being retired now, I am not exposed to all this information as part of my working life. I know the information is out there to be found, but there is too much general stuff, and I would sooner learn from someone in our hobby who has similar interests and experience.

Chris Gunn

John,

Sounds feasible - an aero modelling friend always said 'anything will fly with enough power'

Tony

John,

Sounds feasible - an aero modelling friend always said 'anything will fly with enough power'

Tony

Hi

While I intend to maintain and develop my conventional/manual skills I have become very much interested in the boarder spectrum of model engineering using computer hardware and software in the workshop and would agree these are indeed very useful tools.

I quickly loose interest in in-depth articles on cnc and cad packages etc. however, reviews of available hardware and software etc are of interest. Such articles provide an awareness of what's available, how it can be applied and where to look for more comprehensive information. More importantly, lets see how such tools have been applied and what's been made.

I have recently become curious about Raspberry Pi and Arduino and wonder if such hardware has been put to good use in the workshop, I would certainly like to see occasional articles that include various types of hardware and software applied to model engineering and workshop activity, though I emphasis "occasional".

Maybe 10% of my workshop activity is cad/cnc related, I do use Gearotic, Vectric 2D, Meshcam, Draftsight, Alibre and Mach 3 though not enough to be proficient.

Nigel

Coming at the question from another direction - building software is certainly an engineering task, often a very complex one. Similar mindset needed as for mechanical engineering. The two disciplines come together with topics like robotics. Anyone who has mechanical engineering skills and wants to get into programming could do worse than buying a Lego Mindstorms set.

Andy

Edited By jason udall on 13/01/2014 09:41:05

Yes, I've had a quick play with it and worked through a couple of their tutorials. I don't know if it's just me missing things but I find that some of the most useful features in Solidworks (I'm using a version of Solidworks that is about 12 years old) are missing. The problem is that every package has a different user interface and so it would take a great deal of learing to do a proper comparison.

One of the most useful features of Solidworks (for me) is the tree showing all of the operations that have been used to create the part. You can use this to roll back and make changes such as changing a sketch that has been used to make an extrusion etc.

Designspark Mechanical (Spaceclaim) does however offer much better value for money!

Russell.

Russell,

I have used Inventor and Alibre which have the design tree as you describe for solid works, editing is easy and convenient. For me convenient editing is a key requirement for any 3d cad package.

I have briefly tried Viacad, Design Spark Mechanical and some others but find the absence of the design tree a huge disadvantage making editing difficult to do and learn. In this respect I think the learning curve for these will be much greater when used for more complex design.

It's disappointing that non of the cheaper and free packages include the design tree. Normally I will do quite allot of editing as the design progresses so for me Alibre is much easier, quicker and less frustrating to learn, worth the extra cost. Inventor or Solid works would be nice but much to expensive for my use.

Nigel

Hi David

I found it easy enough to learn how to create a part using the cheaper and free cad packages but came unstuck when wanting to edit. I hope the design tree feature in alibre and the like does not eventually disappear, I would like to see it retained at least in a configuration option if nothing else.

Nigel

Nigel.

ViaCAD does have history - it's in the Concept Explorer, so when a part is highlighted it becomes editable and allows for the suppression of features as well as their modification. I don't know how it would compare to Alibre, but it is there. Also, if a solid is for instance extruded from lines & curves, then any change to the lines & curves will update the solid.

Martin.

No intention to get rid of the Design Tree in Alibre/Geomagic as far as I'm aware.

There is a wider 'war' (or should that be debate) in the CAD industry between 'history based' and 'direct modelling' approaches.

Both approaches have their strengths.

You are forgetting Hardware Abstraction Layer <wink>

not that I know anything about these things.

graham.