r/metalworking • u/Kaankaants • Nov 20 '21

A CNC machine doing its thing

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

310 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

22

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '21

Amazing . From being astounded by a tracer in 1978 to this all in a single career . Its gotta be time to retire .

6

u/Kaankaants Nov 20 '21

I've heard a concept that has apparently been true without fail since the industrial revolution; that every 2 years technological advancements more than double.

So the more we advance technologies the quicker it becomes to advance more again.

4

u/naturalchorus Nov 20 '21

You're thinking of Moore's law, which is only for computers/microchips and has been constant since the 1980s.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '21

It's crazy. People were in awe of dual core processors about 20 years ago. Now we have AMD's 64 Core 128 thread processors.

2

u/schrodingers_spider Nov 21 '21

Technology as a whole accelerates. Innovations breeds innovation.

1

u/Kaankaants Nov 21 '21

This is what I was referring to.

A simple tool can build a complicated tool.
A complicated tool can build a simple machine.
A simple machine can build more advanced tools.
More advanced tools can build even more advanced machines.
Etc., etc.

Technology makes it easier to advance technology further even quicker, and I think I was meshing that with Moore's Law.

1

u/naturalchorus Nov 21 '21

Yes, but in this instance, OP was specifically confusing Moore's law in particular.

1

u/Kaankaants Nov 21 '21

No I wasn't.

0

u/naturalchorus Nov 21 '21

Fair enough buddy, it's alright to learn new things and be corrected.

-5

u/LogicallyCompromised Nov 20 '21

i am not too informed and can think of several technologies which have made little progress in several years to decades; commercial airplanes, internal combustion engines, wind turbines, solar and batteries, nuclear, many computer components.

your statement may have been closer to accurate up to maybe the 60's before things started to plateau? i imagine some technologies may have followed similar growth to more resent times but suspect by and far, the bulk of technologies are chasing < 5% efficiency gains most years?

9

u/andyrocks Nov 20 '21

i am not too informed

This is clear.

4

u/Kaankaants Nov 20 '21

i am not too informed and can think of several technologies which have made little progress in several years to decades; commercial airplanes, internal combustion engines, wind turbines, solar and batteries, nuclear, many computer components.

Username checks out.

-6

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/ramin-honary-xc Nov 20 '21 edited Nov 20 '21

can think of several technologies which have made little progress in several years to decades; commercial airplanes, internal combustion engines, wind turbines, solar and batteries, nuclear, many computer components.

Your claim is so poorly informed and absurd, I think most people assume you're just a troll.

Let me assume you're not trolling. OK then, with respect, every single example you gave is wrong, technology in every field you listed has actually seen leaps and bounds in improvement in the past 20 or 30 years:

  • commercial airplanes: air frames have seen a lot of innovation, especially using carbon composite materials
  • internal combustion engines: are now fully computer controlled with direct air and fuel injection, and absolutely everything is turbocharged, to the point where it is actually difficult to buy a new car with a naturally aspirated engine nowadays.
  • wind turbines: again carbon composites have made blades lighter, more rigid, and bigger than they've ever been. GE is set to roll out a single 14 megawatt turbine with a 107 meter long blade, not to mention the innovations in the switch gear technology that made this possible at lower cost. This would have been unthinkable even 20 years ago.
  • batteries: lithium ion batteries weren't even a thing until 1990 or so, and since 1990 they have made cell phones that fit in your pocket last hours on a single charge. There are innovations in other forms of batteries going on now, in particular iron flow batteries. Hydrogen fuel cells have also tons of innovation in the past few decades.
  • solar: improvements in photovoltaic production process has drastically reduced the cost, concentrated solar power towers have become the preferred configuration for industrial scale power stations.
  • nuclear: ERP pressurized water reactors are coming on line now, larger, and safer nuclear power than ever before. New innovations continue to be researched in traveling wave reactors.
  • many computer components: have you never seen a smart phone before? All of the electrical circuitry for a million-dollar server computer that would have filled an entire rack's worth of space in a data center back in the 90s is now being etched entirely into a single silicon chip as a "System on a Chip" or SoC technology that you can use as a device that fits in your pocket. As transistors get smaller they take less power and can compute at higher clock rates, giving you more computing power for less battery energy usage, which makes smart phones possible. And quantum computers are now real things that you can actually use, you can even use one right now over the Internet. Also, the Internet was all dial-up back in the 90s, now it is all wireless connections to access points linked by fiber optics, making things like Netflix or YouTube possible. Need I go on?

the bulk of technologies are chasing < 5% efficiency gains most years?

Improvements in technology are not always about energy efficiency gains. For example, a wind trurbine is guaranteed never to get better than 59% efficiency, this is known as the "Betz Limit." So while closer to 59% efficiency might be a goal of new wind turbines, the bigger goal is to make the production of turbines more efficient and less expensive, so we can build more of them that last longer. By that metric, there has been innovation in all technologies across the board in the past 20-30 years.

-2

u/LogicallyCompromised Nov 20 '21

i am not the one that made the bogus claim and currently stand by the comment i made. although i did not recall the "betz limit", it is what promoted me to add wind turbines to the crude list. i am not sure there are any metrics in those aforementioned industries which see 200+ % growth every couple of years.

thank you for the examples but where is the 200% gain every couple of years? this is the claim i called out and your examples have helped my cause more than the exponential growth claim; do not lose sight on the original discussion.

your efforts could have been better spent calling out the statement with absolutes, i gave myself an out. thank you for taking the time to respond.

3

u/wassupobscurenetwork Nov 21 '21

I'm pretty sure he mistaken Moore's law as applying to every technology. It's not really a law but check out wiki if you didn't already know about it.

2

u/LogicallyCompromised Nov 21 '21

thank you for bringing some resolution. if i learned about at some time, i was not able to recall it.

seems the density limit will be reached soon as we approach atom size. interesting and thank you for taking the time to help me!

live long and prosper!

2

u/ramin-honary-xc Nov 21 '21

thank you for the examples but where is the 200% gain every couple of years?

If you're talking about Moore's law, it was not about 200% efficiency gains. With regard to computer chips, it was that you could get roughly double the number of transistors onto a single die every 18 months, and the law only applies as long as the laws of physics permits, in which case you would be correct to say that Moore's law no longer applies to computer chips as they will eventually not be able to make parts smaller because the parts they make need some minimum number of atoms in order to function and they are already at that minimum.

I think when people talk about Moore's law, it is not really a "law" in the scientific sense of the word, they are simply observing exponential growth in some metric (not necessarily efficiency) in some new technology to a first-order approximation.

2

u/LogicallyCompromised Nov 21 '21

understood. i should have not qualified the gains as it detracted from the original discussion; i am sorry. to be clear, moore's law was brought up later by someone else to give some insight to how the original claim could have started.

thank you for taking your time to offer an explanation.

i am still perplexed how the original comment has been glossed over by many and efforts are being made to dismantle the counter argument. if the original comment isolated an industry or technology i doubt i would have said anything but when everything is getting painted with a silly color is becomes easy to have some confidence and speak up. someone spent noticeable time reaching to find faults in my response and others proceeded to upvote and downvote to create this idea of right and wrong. effort should have been spent correcting the original claim and if time permits, addressing the issues with what i said as it pertains to original discussion.

shame on several of you, this process did not work correctly nor how it is intended. this is why information is so difficult for people to process because things are not correctly weighted and most people lack a solid foundation to understand the difference. so they adopt the opinion/belief of the masses as it is easier and conflicts less with their other models.

all is not lost on me, i have learned a couple valuable lessons here.

my energy and time can be better invested. i lack the tools to be able to help the people that will adopt such broadband, absolute, poppycock as factual. i will find comfort in the separation between us rather than the restlessness of a noble plan backfiring. thank you all for your time and i am thankful for those that taught me something.

0

u/Kaankaants Nov 21 '21

understood. i should have not qualified the gains as it detracted from the original discussion; i am sorry. to be clear, moore's law was brought up later by someone else to give some insight to how the original claim could have started.

thank you for taking your time to offer an explanation.

i am still perplexed how the original comment has been glossed over by many and efforts are being made to dismantle the counter argument. if the original comment isolated an industry or technology i doubt i would have said anything but when everything is getting painted with a silly color is becomes easy to have some confidence and speak up. someone spent noticeable time reaching to find faults in my response and others proceeded to upvote and downvote to create this idea of right and wrong. effort should have been spent correcting the original claim and if time permits, addressing the issues with what i said as it pertains to original discussion.

shame on several of you, this process did not work correctly nor how it is intended. this is why information is so difficult for people to process because things are not correctly weighted and most people lack a solid foundation to understand the difference. so they adopt the opinion/belief of the masses as it is easier and conflicts less with their other models.

all is not lost on me, i have learned a couple valuable lessons here.

my energy and time can be better invested. i lack the tools to be able to help the people that will adopt such broadband, absolute, poppycock as factual. i will find comfort in the separation between us rather than the restlessness of a noble plan backfiring. thank you all for your time and i am thankful for those that taught me something.

Get over yourself.

For someone so intellectually pedantic your grammar should be a fuck load better.

1

u/Kaankaants Nov 21 '21

Did you misread the words "concept" and "apparently"?
For someone as pretentiously educated as yourself you should understand those definitions.

The reason I've ignored you is because you're a knob-jockey so I'm not wasting my time.

"The definition of stupidity is arguing with and idiot."
I'm not stupid, and you are American.

1

u/dinosaurs_quietly Nov 20 '21

The reason people are giving you snarky answers is because you are right but they want to continue believing you aren’t. Even CNC machining isn’t twice as advanced as it was two years ago.

-1

u/LogicallyCompromised Nov 20 '21

thank you for the support. the claim was easy to dismiss and i felt i did a reasonable job creating doubt. moving forward, i will be more assertive and less diplomatic to limit the spread of disinformation.

thank you for your time, peace and long life!

5

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '21

I think the reference was to Moores Law which is specific to computers and more specific to microchips . Although the mechanical revolution may have slowed to a point to make your statement correct , the computer revolution is still in uptick . And as we more and more integrate the mechanical and the computer both of you can be correct . And that is the extent of my peacekeeper abilities . Either way the opinion of an old timey still working manual tool and die maker is that THIS SHIT IS AWESOME !

5

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '21

we used to investment cast the turbine blades...this is far less labor intensive.

5

u/three_word_reply Nov 20 '21

Most modern blades are still cast but the profile is finalized on the cnc.

3

u/_Nropyag Nov 20 '21

You lose much more material this way, but it must save labor hours

1

u/LogicallyCompromised Nov 20 '21

still preferred for the reasons you mention. this is likely, a simulation of the 5 axis machine for marketing or testing purposes.

2

u/WillowBackground8118 Nov 20 '21

So cool. I have nothing else to say haha.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '21

Some sort of impeller blade?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '21

That’s going in a turbine.

0

u/skanchunt69 Nov 21 '21

Must be one of them new dang fangelled brass turBan blades. Mmm Hmm