5 ms·

These articles are written by people who have no idea what they are talking about and have never built anything, much less anything in the physical world before

These articles are written by people who have no idea what they are talking about and have never built anything, much less anything in the physical world before.

JimtheCoder 3y ago
But, they will mainly be read by people who have no idea what they are talking about and will never build anything, much less anything in the physical world...so, it all balances out I guess?
- toss1 3y ago
  Can confirm both. I have a composites design & fabrication biz, and while I always seek good automated solutions, and indeed some parts can be automated, we are soooo far away from what that article propounds that it is a ridiculous fiction for any serious product development & mfg. Maybe might work for some cheap Chinese-junk type stuff, but nothing real, at least soon. The problem is that some of the ignorant writers and readers don't recognize their own ignorance, and are in a position to make corp & govt policy based on that ignorance. Then, we all pay.
Animats 3y ago
I get that feeling too. The article doesn't distinguish between making parts and assembly. Making parts was mostly mechanized decades ago. The article talks about 3D printing in metal, which is a nice technology but way too slow to be used to bang out consumer products. Assembly is still tough to automate. If you want automated assembly, you usually have to design things so that the parts go into place with little or no fuss. Vertical assembly is common, where everything is placed with a straight-down move. This goes way back, to the first cheap mass-produced clocks, where there's a baseplate with pins sticking out of it, you just drop on the gears in the right order, and it all comes together. They mention Bright Machines. Their site is heavy on the hype, weak on the machine specs.[1] They sell some kind of robotic assembly cell. So do many other companies. Sony had a nice one thirty years ago for making the Walkman. It's not clear what Bright brings to the party. More software integration, probably; they talk about that a lot. There are some new results from MIT on assembly planning.[2] This is kind of cute. They start with a game-type physics model of the assembled item and figure out how to take it apart. That's reversed into an assembly plan. Joint work from MIT, Texas A&M, and Autodesk. It's surprising how much manual work is involved in assembling a mobile phone. It's a high-volume product with a modest number of parts, the ideal case for automation. Many early US-made mobile phones were assembled automatically. They were stacks of boards that just had to be dropped onto alignment pins and pressed together. Newer phones have tiny flat cables and connectors all over the place. Most automated assembly lines involve a huge amount of custom tooling. It's not a few robots with standard tools. The state of the art in robotic assembly is far worse that you'd think it would be. And that's after half a century of work on the problem, all the way back to McCarthy in the 1960s. [1] https://www.brightmachines.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BrightMachines_brochure.pdf https://www.brightmachines.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Br... [2] https://news.mit.edu/2022/automated-way-assemble-thousands-objects-1207 https://news.mit.edu/2022/automated-way-assemble-thousands-o...
- throw9away6 3y ago
  Most people don’t understand how fast tolerances can stack up during assembly and how complicated any step could be. Oftentimes for complex parts you may need to articulate on 5-6 axis or support in a complex orientation or just shim out existing mismatch. Humans are really cheap compared to robots that could do the same thing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

These articles are written by people who have no idea what they are talking about and have never built anything, much less anything in the physical world before.

JimtheCoder 3y ago

But, they will mainly be read by people who have no idea what they are talking about and will never build anything, much less anything in the physical world...so, it all balances out I guess?

toss1 3y ago
Can confirm both. I have a composites design & fabrication biz, and while I always seek good automated solutions, and indeed some parts can be automated, we are soooo far away from what that article propounds that it is a ridiculous fiction for any serious product development & mfg. Maybe might work for some cheap Chinese-junk type stuff, but nothing real, at least soon. The problem is that some of the ignorant writers and readers don't recognize their own ignorance, and are in a position to make corp & govt policy based on that ignorance. Then, we all pay.

Animats 3y ago

I get that feeling too. The article doesn't distinguish between making parts and assembly. Making parts was mostly mechanized decades ago. The article talks about 3D printing in metal, which is a nice technology but way too slow to be used to bang out consumer products. Assembly is still tough to automate. If you want automated assembly, you usually have to design things so that the parts go into place with little or no fuss. Vertical assembly is common, where everything is placed with a straight-down move. This goes way back, to the first cheap mass-produced clocks, where there's a baseplate with pins sticking out of it, you just drop on the gears in the right order, and it all comes together. They mention Bright Machines. Their site is heavy on the hype, weak on the machine specs.[1] They sell some kind of robotic assembly cell. So do many other companies. Sony had a nice one thirty years ago for making the Walkman. It's not clear what Bright brings to the party. More software integration, probably; they talk about that a lot. There are some new results from MIT on assembly planning.[2] This is kind of cute. They start with a game-type physics model of the assembled item and figure out how to take it apart. That's reversed into an assembly plan. Joint work from MIT, Texas A&M, and Autodesk. It's surprising how much manual work is involved in assembling a mobile phone. It's a high-volume product with a modest number of parts, the ideal case for automation. Many early US-made mobile phones were assembled automatically. They were stacks of boards that just had to be dropped onto alignment pins and pressed together. Newer phones have tiny flat cables and connectors all over the place. Most automated assembly lines involve a huge amount of custom tooling. It's not a few robots with standard tools. The state of the art in robotic assembly is far worse that you'd think it would be. And that's after half a century of work on the problem, all the way back to McCarthy in the 1960s. [1] https://www.brightmachines.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BrightMachines_brochure.pdf https://www.brightmachines.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Br... [2] https://news.mit.edu/2022/automated-way-assemble-thousands-objects-1207 https://news.mit.edu/2022/automated-way-assemble-thousands-o...

throw9away6 3y ago
Most people don’t understand how fast tolerances can stack up during assembly and how complicated any step could be. Oftentimes for complex parts you may need to articulate on 5-6 axis or support in a complex orientation or just shim out existing mismatch. Humans are really cheap compared to robots that could do the same thing.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]