Wohlers Talk

The following are some random observations from a November 2008 visit to Beijing, China. I hope you find them of interest.

• On average, drivers in Beijing have had a driver’s license for three years.
• Twenty percent of the cars in Beijing cannot be driven during the week. If your car’s license plate number ends in 1 or 6, for example, you cannot drive on Mondays. This rule does not apply to the weekends.
• The skies above Beijing were much clearer than I remember them from previous trips in 1998 and 2002.
• You see bicycles in Beijing, and in some places, many. But compared to 10 years ago, there are few. They’ve been pushed out by cars from Volkswagen, Audi, Shanghai-GM, Peugeot, and others.
• The highways in Beijing, especially the major ones, such as the one to/from the airport, are in perfect condition. No expense was spared on bridges, overpasses, signs, etc.
• When walking or running on the sidewalks and streets of Beijing, you really need to be careful. If you don’t, you’ll get mowed over by a car or bus, or worse, a three-wheel bike hauling a load of lumber or something else.
• The French often meet for dinner at 9:00 pm, get served at 10:00 and wrap up at mid-night. The Chinese are at the other extreme. They meet for dinner early, begin eating almost immediately, and wrap up in a surprisingly short amount of time.
• Relatively few Chinese can speak or read English. A Chinese friend created written instructions for my cab drivers.
• Prices have gone up dramatically, yet much of what you buy is still 2-4 times less than in the U.S. That’s how inexpensive it was before. A can of Chinese beer at the hotel is $1.50, compared to about $.25 ten years ago. A 20-25 minute cab ride is about $7.

Beijing is a fascinating city. The Summer Games brought about significant improvements to its infrastructure. If you plan to go to Beijing in the future, be sure to visit Olympic Park to see the Bird’s Nest, Water Cube, and other striking architectural structures. The new terminal at the airport is the most impressive I’ve seen anywhere. Click here to see a few images from the trip.

I like to travel and would not do it if I didn’t. I enjoy meeting people from around the world, experiencing new cultures and foods, and seeing historic sites and the countryside. I understand and appreciate most of the security measures at airports. However, there’s a few things associated with travel that are irritating, especially when they occur repeatedly.

One aggravation are the fees for Internet access at some hotels and airport lounges. Many hotel chains in the U.S. now offer free, unlimited Internet. They know that it does not cost them much once the network is in place. The maintenance cost is minimal compared to what they gain (happy customers) in return. I stayed at a hotel in Europe recently that charged $25 per day for access. When paying, you must also enter login codes and passwords and they can be a headache. I usually voice my disapproval when checking in and I hope you do too. I hope that someday, it is free and simple wherever you stay.

Most beds at hotels are reasonably comfortable, but I just don’t understand the reasoning behind a duvet, which is used widely in Europe and some other parts of the world. Maybe it’s because I grew up with sheets and blankets. Using or not using a duvet is like being an oven or refrigerator and nothing in-between. There’s no way to regulate comfort. Would someone please explain to me why they are used?

On occasion, people must answer their phone or make a phone call in public, but why do they have to talk so loudly? Many talk much louder than if you were holding a conversation with them face-to-face. I sat across from a woman on a train recently that talked for 30 minutes non-stop and it was anything but pleasant. Others in the train car were giving her the evil eye, but that didn’t seem to matter. What’s wrong with these people?

It’s a privilege to travel and I enjoy it a lot, and overall, these annoyances are minor. When they occur over and over, they can be puzzling.

Many years ago, I read the classic The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. Of all the suggestions offered in the book, one stuck with me the most. I call it the Big Rock principle. Our lives are filled with jobs, tasks, meetings, and emails—sometimes an overwhelming number of them. If you are like many people, you sometimes slip into a period where you’re working hard and long hours, but you neglect some of the most important stuff.

Covey points out that if you fill an empty jar with pebbles, it’s impossible to fit big rocks into it. If you first place rocks into the jar, you can fit many small pebbles around them. The idea is that you must concentrate on the big, important projects before the small tasks. If you fall into the trap of dealing with little items, one after another, the day and night can disappear before you know it. And, you don’t feel that you’ve accomplished much—and certainly not what’s important. If I’m not careful, I find myself processing email as it arrives or taking phone calls, rather than staying focused on a critical project. When I maintain focus, I can knock our major chucks of a project and still find time to fit in the little things.

The next time you feel like your day is spent unproductively, ask yourself how you’re spending time. Remind yourself of the Big Rock principle. “Turn off” your email and phone and concentrate, non-stop, on a single activity that’s important. Almost always, you will find time to fit in the smaller tasks and you will gain a greater sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.

The plane pushed back at 1:50 pm on November 4, 2008 from San Francisco International Airport. It wasn’t until I arrived Beijing, China at 6:00 pm on the 5th that I learned the results of the U.S. presidential election. I was surprised by the views of almost everyone I encountered during my 16-day zigzag around the world. I found that people internationally are happy with our nation’s decision. Already, it has begun to restore our blemished image, making it less awkward for Americans to travel abroad.

The November 8, 2008 issue of The Economist reported the outcome of 53,000 readers worldwide who voted on-line. More than 44,000—a margin of better than five to one—chose Obama. When considering electoral college votes by country (using a method similar to the way the U.S.’s electoral college system allocates votes by state), Obama collected 9,115 compared to 203 by McCain. That’s a ratio of about 45 to 1. The authors of the article believe the U.S. will enjoy more international goodwill than it has in recent years, something that both parties can celebrate. A separate article in the same issue of The Economist stated, “America will now be easier for its friends to like and harder for its foes to hate.”

The challenge will be for Obama to deliver on his promises, especially considering the current economic crisis. More than 47% of Americans did not vote for him, so uniting the nation will be a very big job. Also, whenever one party controls both Congress and the White House, problems develop. History shows that Americans prefer the checks-and-balances that come with having different parties in Congress and the White House. So, only time will tell whether the outcome of the election is good for our nation and the world.

In The Boston Globe article “Next software for the masses? How about three-dimensional design,” author Scott Kirsner explained that computers were once used only by PhDs and videocassette recorders were designed for television broadcasters. He went on to say that the mobile phone, GPS, photo editing software, and Internet were intended originally for professionals and academic types.

Kirsner suggested that 3D design software may someday become common among non-professionals and I agree. When playing with Google SketchUp, it doesn’t take much time to see what is possible. However, before 3D design truly makes it to the mainstream, it will need to become even easier than SketchUp, and it will. Take, for example, Spore Creature Creator from Electronic Arts. I was able to create elaborate 3D creatures in the first few minutes after installing the software. What’s more, these models are fully closed, water-tight solid volumes that can be manufactured.

The key will be for software, running on your computer or web server, to help you along so that it becomes effortless. I don’t expect for design software such as SolidWorks or even SketchUp to achieve this level of ease. I envision, for example, software designed for a very specific purpose, such as designing bicycles. The process might start by allowing you to select a style from a library of frames. After selecting one, you could change its shape, but within limits, making it impossible to produce designs that would not accommodate wheels, a seat, handlebars, sprockets, crank, and so on. It knows that you are designing a bicycle and not an electronic device, football stadium, or something else, so everything is built around bicycle design with libraries of parts that you can change. 

We are at the early phase of having access to software that allows almost anyone to create 3D content with little effort and no design experience. The models may not be as sophisticated as those produced by users of Catia, Inventor, Pro/E, or SolidWorks, but that may not matter. The majority of these models would be used in educational or entertaining ways, such as adding them to a document, video clip, or computer game, or manufacturing them on a 3D printer.

A lot needs to be fixed in the U.S. at the moment. At the risk of being the bearer of more bad news, here goes.

Jonathan Gourlay, features editor of Desktop Engineering, wrote an interesting editorial in the August 2008 issue. He stated the following.

           In the last fiscal year, the Energy Department had planned to spend
           $159 million on solar research and development. Nearly double
           that, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development,
           and nearly triple, $427 million, on coal, as well as $167 million on
           fossil fuel research and development. Using the most conservative
           recent numbers available, we spend that combined amount every 
           five days in Iraq.

Shocking? It certainly was to me. With a new administration coming on board soon, I am hopeful that we will see some changes that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse emissions. Our current national priorities give us little chance of either.

I’ve had the opportunity to visit many organizations and conferences on additive fabrication (AF) over the past few years. Something that may be alarming to some has presented itself. The U.S. has fallen behind Europe. Case in point: I attended a first-year AF conference this month in Ptuj, Slovenia. The topics and discussions were more interesting and advanced than those at a major U.S. conference held earlier this year. With the exception of some academic research, much of the thinking in the U.S. has become out of date, out of touch, and just plain dull.

The U.S. of the past was proactive in creating new ideas and programs and were on the forefront of AF technology. Excitement levels were high and it was contagious among Americans. The U.S. was the envy of the world. Much of this has shifted to Europe, even to less central places such as Slovenia. If you want to see the most comprehensive and interesting products and companies on the subject, you need to travel to Frankfurt, Germany for the annual EuroMold trade fair.

Another important point: Most of the AF systems that build metal parts are from Europe. They include Direct Metal Laser Sintering from EOS (Germany), Electron Beam Melting from Arcam (Sweden), LaserCUSING from Concept Laser (Germany), laser melting from Phenix Systems (France), and Selective Laser Melting from MTT (UK/Germany).

It’s not too late for the U.S. to recapture the excitement of the past. For it to do so, the U.S. must look beyond its borders for fresh ideas, applications, and technologies, just as the Europeans relied on the U.S. in the past. Our country will not advance the industry to the next level with an inward focus and complacent attitude. It must consider developments in other countries and participate in educational events in Europe and other parts of the world.

The U.S. has an opportunity to play a lead role in organizing an industry that currently needs direction. We have no “map” to the future. Ten years ago, the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences and several other organizations and individuals led the development of a roadmap for the AF industry. It is time for the U.S. to once again take a leadership position in shaping the future of this important industry. The alternative is to flounder down an uncertain path while Europe, and eventually Asia and other parts of the world, seize the opportunity.

Earlier this year, Machine Design magazine revealed the results from its annual salary survey. According to the April 24 issue, engineers make from about $68,000 to $148,000 annually. Vice presidents of engineering earn nearly $129,000, while consulting engineers get $148,000. Design, project, and R&D engineers are at the other end of the pay scale, although it’s not dramatically lower than other engineering types who earn in the range of about $70,000 to $91,000.

College degrees play a role as one might expect. Yet, even those without a degree are paid nearly $68,000, on average. With a bachelor’s degree, the pay increases to more than $79,000 for those with a non-engineering degree and to more than $83,000 for those with an engineering degree. The salary jumps to about $99,000 for individuals with a master’s degree in engineering.

If you’re considering a doctorate in engineering to earn more, you may want to spend your time and money elsewhere. Those individuals earn less, at about $95,000. However, people with a non-engineering doctorate receive $135,000, according to the survey.

All in all, engineers do pretty well, but of course they should. If you consider the pressures and responsibilities they face, engineers should be rewarded handsomely. Let’s hope that many of our best and brightest young people pursue engineering or a related field as a career and earn what they deserve.

Late last week I visited Medical Modeling Inc. of Golden, Colorado. I’ve been to the company a few times in the past, but this time was different. I’ve always been impressed by the company’s progressive thinking and dazzling projects. This time, however, I was taken to another level. There really is no other company like it. Not even close.

Andy Christensen has been the head of the company from the beginning. His youthful look makes you wonder how he could have started the company 12 years ago. Since then, he and his team have completed an estimated 13,000 individuals cases from around the world, many requiring multiple models. The breadth and complexity of the projects—all medical-related using CT or MRI scan data—is nothing short of extraordinary.

The core business has focused on the building of models that serve as a planning tool to teams of surgeons. Producing translucent models that reveal tumors, nerves, blood vessels, and other anatomy has been key. Most of these models have been produced using Huntsman’s Stereocol stereolithography resin. The company also runs several Spectrum Z510 multicolor 3D printers from Z Corp.  Very recently, the company installed a new Connex500 machine from Objet Geometries. Christensen said the company plans to introduce models in the future from this system using its unique multi-material characteristics.

Over the past year, the company has been producing metallic parts and implants on its two Electron Beam Melting (EBM) machines from Arcam. Most of the parts to date have been produced in Ti64 titanium alloy, although the company has also used cobalt chrome for wear resistant applications such as knee and hip joints. Already, the company has had components implanted into patients and expects this activity to rise significantly in the coming months with several innovative products in the works.

Accident victims, conjoined twins, cancer patients, brain tumors, severe scoliosis, dental problems, rare diseases and birth defects—Medical Modeling has seen and done it all. The display of parts and pictures of cases at the company is mind-boggling. Some are heart-wrenching. The next time you find yourself in the Denver/Golden area, consider a visit to this company. It will be like no other.

I was sitting at dinner last week in Austin, Texas when the subject of fuel prices came up. Individuals from the UK were present, so we estimated the cost of gasoline in the UK. Our estimate: $9-10 per gallon. One Brit was quick to point out that cars in Europe are much more efficient than those in the U.S., indicating that they often get 40-60 miles per gallon (mpg). In the past, I had wondered if European cars got better mileage, but dismissed the idea. The conversation, however, motivated me to do a little research.

Wikipedia publishes the 2009 UK fuel economy ratings and the 2009 U.S. EPA fuel economy ratings. The mpg for cars sold in the U.S., both foreign and domestic, ranges from a low of 12 to a high of 41 for highway driving. Most cars fell in the range of the mid-teens to the mid-twenties. (It’s interesting to note that the original Ford Model T got 13-21 mpg, according to Wikipedia.) I did not calculate the average mpg because of the number of cars presented in the list.

The 2009 UK fuel economy ratings divided the cars in two groups: 1) 100 cars with the highest fuel economy ratings, and 2) 99 cars with the lowest fuel economy ratings. All of the cars with the best economy run on diesel fuel. These cars range from a low of 66 mpg to a high of 88 mpg for highway driving. The mpg is based on an Imperial gallon, which is about 20% larger than the U.S. gallon. The cars with the worst economy was from about 19 to 29 mpg (also based on an Imperial gallon).

As you can see, the fuel economy of a car with a diesel engine is vastly different than one with a gasoline engine. It is believed that cars with diesel engines are more established in Europe, so this may be one reason for the belief that European cars get better mpg.

The other big difference between Europe and the U.S. is the fleet on the street. According to a March 2007 article titled U.S. vs. Europe in Cars, Gasoline and Energy published by AOL Journals, the U.S. fleet gets about 25 miles per gallon; China about 35 mpg and Europe about 37 mpg. This year, according to the article, automakers are implementing voluntary standards to improve European fuel economy to 44.2 mpg and China to 36.7 mpg. The U.S. will remain at 24.8 mpg.