JAG Engineering LLC

Members
  • Content count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

JAG Engineering LLC last won the day on February 18

JAG Engineering LLC had the most liked content!

About JAG Engineering LLC

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.jagengrg.com
  • Facebook URL
    https://www.facebook.com/JAG-Engineering-LLC-592696604082686/?ref=hl
  • Linkedin URL
    https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=AAIAAADCPGMB84uD-vtCZwSdU21I5TPkFMoUnOw&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile_pic

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wyoming
  • Present Company
    JAG Engineering, LLC
  • Designation / Job Title
    President
  • Highest Qualification
    MSME
  • Year of completition
    1989
  • Engineering Qualification
    BSME
  • Year of completition
    1977
  • Name of Institute
    Pratt Institute & U of Santa Clara

More Information

  • Project Undertaken
    http://www.jagengrg.com/structures.html

Recent Profile Visitors

1,769 profile views
  1. Free, cost $10 - funny. I have a few versions of Free CAD that was actually free. I wonder if the later versions are now sold.
  2. There are many collector groups you can locate on line. These hobbyists are an incredible source for information. I watched this video and they mention the transition to vinyl but did not specifically say the horn would not work but after reading your post that may be what he was referring to.
  3. Dr. D hit it on the head. The big corps are alluring but a small company with design and fabrication functions will be worth much to you. Do everything you can to talk to every department and visit if allowed. Ask the members in each department what they wish the other departments knew. Don't try to fix the company in a one month internship but use the information in your work and in your professional role. Many problems are not unique once you get to the core. But are allowed to remain and erode time and profits.
  4. Mild Steel. I had to look it up myself. Still don't fully understand the question.
  5. Dr D, Sorry to hear this is the end. I too had much more responses to my earlier posts. This seems to happen even on other sites with a much wider audience. I was surprised that so many read the post as compared to how many interact with the post. The truth is we are all bombarded with so much information it is difficult to focus on one or even a few. The number of e-mails I delete everyday never opening them indicates I need to get off several email lists. I noticed my own enthusiasm sky rocket in the beginning then taper off to the point I forget a blog or site exists for many weeks or months at a time. Information overload and getting worse. Good Luck Joe G
  6. I see dimensions.
  7. Dr. D, I was seeking clarification for the author of the original question. If they have to ask what a FBD is, they may not recognize one if they took your words verbatim - "A FBD does not include dimensions, or other data, but forces only."
  8. Dr. D, You say the FBD does not include dimensions. How could the sum of the moments be done if you have the forces but don't know the locations? As far as minimal detail info I agree. Seldom of any help and undue complication. Word to students - pay attention to this method in class. In the real world there is no book with the answers at the end of the chapter to your real world problems. Learn how to use the sum of forces and sum of moments and you can solve many problems.
  9. I took a fast glance at the pat. https://www.google.com/patents/US7168555 There are two states, fully extended and unextened. The extended length will determine how much conveyor surface you will require. The unextended state will determine how many sections you will need. How you get the sections to move out and in will depend on what your actual requirements are. As you can see at https://www.google.com/search?q=telescoping+conveyors&rlz=1C1RNKB_enUS490US498&espv=2&biw=1222&bih=646&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwier_qlhaTRAhUs0oMKHUkmDfAQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=fPTq9ve8Ql8i4M%3A there are many configurations. Study these photos and you will see many ways it has been done and what works or does not work for you. For instance does the device need to convey when unextended, only when fully extended, or through the full range? Are you moving aggregate or other loose material or discrete items like boxes of different sizes? Don't rely only on the patent example, it is only one of many ways it can be done, and may not be intended for your needs. With the internet you should beable to do far more research that I or Dr. D could have done when we were you age. Use the tools!
  10. If this is an existing product call the manufacturer and ask for technical sales or an applications engineer. The "formulas" they may be able to provide will be based on actual test data which will be required for their QC program. The catalog may provide some values.
  11. I get great satisfaction when working with my hands. When I do so I always ask why the item I am working on is as it is. One source of frustration I believe many have experienced it the lack of tool access. Sometimes n-1 fasteners are a breeze to access and the nth takes more time to remove than all the other combined. I don’t recall from my machine design class ever addressing this real world situation. I learned how to size bolts, bearings, and cross-sections but I don’t recall any mention of tool access. I learned there existed standards for tool access when I entered industry. In the auto industry one thing you tried to avoid was the need for special tool kits. These were not cheap and every automobile dealer and repair shop needs to purchase the special kits if they intend to make the particular repair. As much as this was avoided 30 years ago (and I assume still today) these special kits existed. While working in a different industry we were cleaning up a lab area. I came across an Allen Wrench (hex key) that did not make the usual 90 degree bend. It brought to mind the special kits I mentioned above. It had been modified to have a second bend nearly 90 degrees. I taped it to the wall in the design department with the following note. Do Not Design Anything That Needs a Tool Like This! There are reasons a lack of tool access happens. Parts designed for one application may have been created with adequate access. The same item is later used on a different application and the surrounding space is already accounted for. But there are cases where there simply is not enough thought applied or too many bean counters controlling the design function. As the Wyoming winter approaches there are things that need attention. Today two of those frustrations had to be addressed. I have a generator for times when power goes out and an ATV (all terrain vehicles) for snow removal. Both have batteries for starting. Battery removal is more difficult than it should be for both.The generator can be manually started but if needed when it is -20F (-29C) that can be quite an effort. For the ATV the battery is held in place with two screws and a padded flat metal bar across the width of the battery. This is an (n-1) example. One of the two screws has plenty of access and the other is under a plastic housing. What would make it more user friendly (for those who buy the products) would be to make the end of the retaining bar that is under the plastic housing, slip into a slot of some kind. The other end which is very accessible would use the one screw. This would eliminate one fastener, eliminate the captured nut or tapped hole (can’t see what is there) and make battery removal so much easier for little or no cost. My solution which could easily be incorporated at the factory was to cut a slot on the end of the bar with poor tool access. Doing so eliminated the need to remove the hidden fastener. Just loosen enough to slip the retaining bar out then back in. You can rotate the retainer but it must pass over the positive terminal and the bar is grounded to the frame. Better to remove it. For the generator I speculate this is the multi application issue. The same design is sold with and without battery start. These options don’t come cheap and if as in the auto industry, have a handsome margin. So why punish the big spenders? The panel with all the outlets is welded to the frame. The panel extends quite a distance down to provide a billboard for the power rating. Behind the immovable plate lies the battery. Accessing the battery retainers and cables would be simple if the lower portion of the plate was either detachable or eliminated. Since I don’t transport the generator I leave the retainers off. Access to the cables is still more difficult than it need be. So for those who have not yet entered industry let these two examples provide food for thought when you are designing equipment. Many small improvements can be incorporated for little or no cost prior to production release of the design. Those about to enter industry seek out the senior engineers and ask for the standards books. Spend some time, even your own time, skimming through the manuals. They contain thousands of man-years of experience. Also spend time in the manufacturing and service facilities if possible. These efforts will provide an insight to what is not taught in class. Photo 1 Is a top down view of the battery retainer. Photo 2 You can see the hidden fastener and the modification to the retainer. Photo 3 Is the generator. The bottom half of the battery can be seen. Photo 4 Is the side view of the battery. Photo 5 Shows the bottom half of the battery more clearly than photo 3.
  12. I recall many years ago first hearing the term Over Engineered. It rang a sour note but I had not given it much thought. I still hear this said today about older equipment. For instance the DC Generators at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn NY have been in operation for over 100 years. http://inspectapedia.com/heat/Steam_Systems_Pratt_Milster.php I had the opportunity a few years ago to visit my alma mater. To my surprise and delight the Chief Engineer who provided the tour of the facility to my class in about 1977 was still on the job as was the equipment. But I digress. Over Engineered is often brought up when speaking about 1950’s vintage American automobiles. “They don’t build them like that anymore”. They don’t build them like that anymore because they don’t design like they use to. When I worked in the auto industry in the late 70’s and early 80’s engineering was in good part “seat of the pants” designing. A lot less analysis than one would expect. Two-D CAD was just getting introduced. There was extensive testing before production. What a lack of analysis left unknown, testing –often brutal testing- would reveal. If a component broke it was made stronger by adding more material or eliminating tight radii or other stress concentration features. Whether the rest of the system was just good enough or 10 times stronger than needed was an unknown. Over time components that never failed were targets for cost reduction. This also was not as analytical as it is likely today. Getting back to the subject of this blog, I would offer that the "weaker" a device is, the more it was engineered. Weaker, because it is designed closer to the expected loads. This of course is aside from shoddy design work. For greater strength the addition of material will usually achieve this. For an item like the generators at Pratt added weight can also help with vibration. The penalties are the onetime cost of added material and greater shipment weight. Adding more material globally to a system such as a rocket, aircraft and to today’s automobile is forbidden. This requires much move engineering. I hope I have provided a better understanding of the term Over Engineered and realize it is really a misleading expression. Equipment back then was Over Designed because the factors of ignorance were much greater just a few decades ago.
  13. Dr. D, I had a project that came to me where there was an applied load provided and minimum description the physical configuration. I started to work on the problem assuming things that where needed to fit the limited information provided. Then I recieved the rest of the information about the physical configuration. It was the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. If defied the laws of statics. It turned out the design came from someone with zero understanding. Any mechanic would know it did not work even with no training in statics, so the intended desire would never be considered any sooner than expecting an object to fall up. What do you see that is inconsistent between the two figures?
  14. I have looked at your diagram and can find multiple interpretations. Does the image I attached represent what you are attempting to do? In this case the linkage cross sections look smaller that the frame. As a starting point you can assume the frame does not flex. The movement will create a minimum gap between the lower end of item 3 and the anvil. It the item being clamped is smaller than the gap the force in the anvil is zero, ignoring the weight of the clamped item. As the part gets thicker the force will be higher. If it is rubber the force will be lower than if you were clamping a piece of steel of the same thickness. links A-B, A-C and 3 will be in compression as will be the object clamped. If the linkages A-B and A-C are almost vertical as item 3 contacts the piece then moves to vertical when clamped, we have 4 springs in series. The spring constants could be approximated by F/Deflection =[(X-sectional area)(E)]/(Length of item). There will be a total deflection from the sum of 4 deflections and you may need a proportional relationship between the linkages and the clamped item. F will the same. Hope this helps.
  15. Glad you found it helpful. Wax on Wax off