Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

emsvitil wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:30 am Except for the 737 MAX

To what specifically do you attribute the problem of the 737MAX?

Given the development cycle of a Jet, the software Boeing uses (primarily CATIA) latency of version updates, latency of training, incorporation of technology. There is unlikely to be any parts on one designed with topology optimization. Probably not for another 10 years. Aerospace are among the slowest adopters of technology.

SchmidtMotorWorks wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:28 pm

exhaustgases wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:47 pm Just curious is that what they used to design those cracking parts on the 737NG? I still think the old slide rule dudes in the past had a better handle on stuff.

Not even close to true
Jet airliner fuel efficiency has nearly doubled since the 1980's

Then why do they claim the ever rising ticket cost are due to fuel costs? Just curious as this is something being questioned a lot now days by people that have calculated fuel storage, cost and usage and the math does not add up.

hoffman900 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:50 pm Yeah, because no plane before AI designed parts ever fell out of the sky...

What a silly statement, but not surprising. I’d rather not go back to when planes were less safe, louder, and slower.

Are they safer or do we only hear about the problem when they crash?

I have a few friends, both private and commercial airlines as well as 2 in air traffic control an none of them feel safe with where things have gone or where they are going and are not allowed to voice their opinion as it may hurt the industry.

SchmidtMotorWorks wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:44 am

emsvitil wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:30 am Except for the 737 MAX

To what specifically do you attribute the problem of the 737MAX?

Given the development cycle of a Jet, the software Boeing uses (primarily CATIA) latency of version updates, latency of training, incorporation of technology. There is unlikely to be any parts on one designed with topology optimization. Probably not for another 10 years. Aerospace are among the slowest adopters of technology.

The 787 was an exercise in topology optimization as they had two Altair contractors that all their job entailed was saving weight and employing smart designs and convincing them how the optimized design met requirements. I even gave a tech presentation at ATC2013 where a one Boeing chief engineer was asking questions about my work with a new optimization tool.

The 37Max doesn't have structural issues. It has software bandaid issues and a little cg/center of lift problem brought on by adopting McDonnell Douglas cost cutting measures and moving away from rigorous engineering discipline to kneejerk reactions to market pressures (320neo).

Back on topic, the foundation of the newest toys in CAE is topology optimization with new buzzwords like generative design and now AI piled on top of it. The interesting thing about the pix above is the load path generated. I really like the twin arches from the roller to the main body. The performance aftermarket could stand to upgrade its designs for rockers and blocks and this is one way to do it. I should have a feasible by tonight as my little 4 core CPU struggles a bit with lotsa small elements.

It appears I spoke too soon, the pickle fork is showing cracks on 37ng’s.

Back to AI rockers...

digger wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:22 pm
isnt it just an FEA topology optimisation program, the same as what have been around for years? what makes it AI

No. Other optimization routines revolve around either set or statistical algorithms for choices on the optimization variables. The algorithm is largely static (keeps trying the same things over and over), or statistical (simulated annealing, Bayesian optimization, etc)

AI optimization is essentially constantly training a neural network on the system to be optimized at hand, all the while feeding it back results. It works as close to how the human brain does as we have been able to achieve. Not only is it tweaking the allowed variables, it begins to learn how the tweaks will affect the system and where to move next. Additionally, there is usually a "penalty" function introduced that prevents it from hanging in one spot, forcing it to learn more than just a narrow scope of possible solutions. I've seen machine learning optimizations solve 9 degree of freedom design problems and come up with solutions that no human would have ever chosen because the combination defies all convention. But the neural network has "learned" the system from far more dimensions than we have.

GARY C wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:54 am

SchmidtMotorWorks wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:28 pm

exhaustgases wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:47 pm Just curious is that what they used to design those cracking parts on the 737NG? I still think the old slide rule dudes in the past had a better handle on stuff.

Not even close to true
Jet airliner fuel efficiency has nearly doubled since the 1980's

Then why do they claim the ever rising ticket cost are due to fuel costs? Just curious as this is something being questioned a lot now days by people that have calculated fuel storage, cost and usage and the math does not add up.

I ask the same question about automobiles and gas prices. The answer is always the same on fuel prices rising. Because they can.
Gallons sold a little slow? Shut down a plant for maintenance. Oh no a shortage. Prices go up.

GARY C wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:21 am

hoffman900 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:50 pm Yeah, because no plane before AI designed parts ever fell out of the sky...

What a silly statement, but not surprising. I’d rather not go back to when planes were less safe, louder, and slower.

Are they safer or do we only hear about the problem when they crash?

I have a few friends, both private and commercial airlines as well as 2 in air traffic control an none of them feel safe with where things have gone or where they are going and are not allowed to voice their opinion as it may hurt the industry.

exhaustgases wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:47 pm Just curious is that what they used to design those cracking parts on the 737NG? I still think the old slide rule dudes in the past had a better handle on stuff.

i agree we should all fly on comets

But not the ones with the square cornered windows...

MadBill wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:32 pm But not the ones with the square cornered windows...

Obviously all this was before my time, but yeah, that was a big oops.

It took McDonnell Douglas a bit to keep the DC-10 from falling out of the air as well

Only idiots would give machines control over us.

Belgian1979 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:15 pm Only idiots would give machines control over us.

SkyNet wrote:All your base are belong to us!

Kevin Johnson wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:18 pm

Just like in most cases of smart solutions that I have experienced, great ideas typically converge on very similar solutions.
Case in point, this optimized rocker arm. Using good fundamentals, the same answer can be reached through different means.
Except mine is better as it doesn't have stress attracting notches.
The solution space is not infinite in the case of this rocker arm. There will be a few local minimums and maximums in the solution surface with properly defined constraints, design variables and objective goal that funnel the solution into very similar load paths and geometry.
I don't need 50 or 100 generative solutions that are variations of a theme.

The one concerning issue of this kind of tech is having "operators" instead of good engineers applying AI.
If you don't know the fundamentals of physics and mechanics, how do you know the "answer" is right?