Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "New Mind" channel.

@NewMind all topology optimization softwares used a form of AI. this is nothing new. It isn't possible WITHOUT some form of machine learning. We've looked at multiple such software programs from companies over the years, and it never pans out for the products we develop. It's a neat tool, but not quite as practical as advertised in many industries. And mind you, I work in the AI industry, on the mechanical engineering side though, but working alongside the software and electrical engineers. And we can't use this software in our designs as it can't optimize much compared to our existing designs, and falls flat at production volumes and prices.
47
correct. and it has limitations due to manufacturing methods, and can often not compete with more traditional methods at high volume production.
29
not just that, but it's generally not optimum for high volume production either. I work in teh AI industry, and you can run this software on a desktop computer. it's more issues with production manufacturing, surface finish, practicality of it, etc.
12
generative design is also not viable for all products. high volume production can be cost prohibitive compared to a traditional tooled design.
6
you didn't mention the C172 refueled by truck 😁
4
@skoparweaver7692 excellent points. I've seen people mentioning fatigue issues with such parts, and what you just described makes sense in that regard, the unexpected forces it wasn't designed for. I can see it working great for things like the shock bell cranks in a car, and such, since those forces are Extremely controlled and predictable. But the bell crank can be so easily designed/made other ways and be good enough as to not matter anyways. How much weight is really saved in an application like that by using the organic approach? you bring up a lot of good points I hadn't even considered, as we never got into making parts this way due to other issues that far preceded actual use and repair.
3
pretty much. there are multiple companies doing such organic design for many years. I'm an engineer and we've looked at it many times, but it's simply not viable for our market. the complexity of the solutions don't lend themselves to fast construction compared to more traditional methods, cost more, and in many cases can't actually help us make a more practical design anyways. for racecars and other neat applications it can be great. but high volume production and certain design constraints such as I work with are not viable.
2
13:42 the spring provided tension? I think not. tension would contract the ring not expand the ring. you need to read up on some basic engineering terms.
2
2.5 to 3 billion internal combustion engines? That's all? There is no way that number is correct. Each car in every country. Personal vehicles, military vehicles, commercial vehicles of all kinds. Race cars. Taxis, buses, trains, etc. Airplanes, many with more than 1 engine. Military aircraft, helicopters, airships, drones... Consider that many aircraft have 2-4+ engines Each as well as an APU. Remote control vehicles. Cars, planes, helicopters, tanks, model rockets, etc. that use internal combustion engines. Agricultural equipment like pumps, tractors, harvesters, etc. Construction equipment like cranes, dozers, excavators, loaders, forklifts, skid steers, logging equipment, garbage trucks, dump trucks, etc. Lawn mowers, snow blowers, weed whackers, leaf blowers, snowmobiles, ATVs, motorcycles, generators, pumps, pressure washers, chainsaws, etc. Missiles, rockets, spacecraft... Museums....over one hundred years of accumulated internal combustion powered things, and internal combustion engines. Many museums contain hundreds or thousands of such engines, Each. Ships and boats, including sailboats, ocean shipping, ferries, submarines, speedboats, racing boats, fishing boats, dinghies, warships, cruise liners, etc. Most Americans I know own at LEAST 4-5 things powered by an internal combustion engine. I know others who own far more things powered by internal combustion engines (easily 20+ for one person). Obviously many people in less developed nations don't have that, and that drags the averages down. But there are almost 8bil people on earth, and we're counting things owned by governments, businesses, militaries, museums, and more, not to mention the accumulation of engines over the past 100+yrs.
1
@bigbattenberg exactly. it has its uses and applications, but we still rarely see it being used in production volume items after all these years. Just too many issues with this design and manufacturing method as you Well point out. At work, the engineers, myself included, get excited over stuff like this, but then reality quickly sets in and we can't use it.
1
@peepopalaber yes, many are, but they don't have to. Best not to argue with the guy who designs and builds them.
1
@peepopalaber "Of course you can, but it takes way too much time on a average desktop computer. EFFECTIVELY" depends WHICH desktop computer you're talking about, and WHAT you're trying to have it do. I have been the designer of multiple records setting AI computers that have achieved firsts in multiple industries doing exactly what you're claiming can't be done. Basic desktop type computers, and we did computing that is revolutionizing communications, emergency services, data processing, exploration, and more.
1
@peepopalaber the link is on NASA's website. " Ahhhh, somebody using Buzzwooooords." pot meet kettle I don't share enough info on here for you to identify me, and I don't care if that means you refuse to believe me. Even if I shared you all the details you'd still refuse to beleive it anyways. So it's pointless to try to convince you. But just now that you're wrong.
1