|
|
|
|
|
07/09/2010
 Email to a friend
 Comment on this article
|
A need to educate consumers was the major theme to emerge from the recent Eureka Linear Motion Round Table.
Discussion began with the presentation of the results of Eureka's Linear Motion Survey, the most alarming result of which revealed that, while 50% of the 179 respondents anticipated specifying linear motion systems or components in the next 12 months, 71% of those admitted that their knowledge of the technology 'needs brushing up'.
In the light of this statistic, Andrew Smith laid some of the blame at the door of manufacturers, saying: "We've got a knowledge gap. And it's there because we as manufacturers have not trained our customers and made it look easy enough for them to feel comfortable with the technology."
Perhaps because of this knowledge gap, it was agreed that there was a widespread reluctance on the part of some designers to employ linear solutions. This was made clear by John Loonam, who said: "You wouldn't believe the number of customers I've seen who've tried to avoid linear like the plague and have ended up bodging together a solution using rotary technology and had problems as a result."
Echoing this, Dr Nick Campbell admitted he had looked at trying to achieve linear-type results using rotary technology for cost reasons, but had never been able to arrive at a satisfactory solution. He also agreed that there was a knowledge gap that could only be bridged by good application support from manufacturers, saying: "I see a number of what I would describe as 'design howlers' caused by the fact that people simply don't have the experience to design these systems."
Emphasising the importance of the manufacturer's role in increasing understanding of the technology, James McMath said: "We'd rather be involved from the outset than come in as 'tail-end charlies' when the framework of the machine is already in place and we may not even be able to help short of a complete redesign."
John Loonam estimated that 30% of his customers were now asking for help designing systems from the outset and that, of the 70% who were not, over half needed help later on in the implementation process. The situation was reversed for Rockwell, according to Andrew Smith, who said that 80% of customers were supported from the outset, although he conceded that the discrepancy may lie in the difficulties of mechanical and electrical engineers in working together. "They speak different languages," he said.
Bradley McEwan believed that things were getting better, however, saying: "The skill sets for this technology in OEMs are getting higher and higher. The problem is, however, that while the skill sets are getting better, they are still not integrating in such a way to allow for overall competence about linear motion."
Speaking for the OEMs, Nick Campbell pointed out that specifying linear systems was a system engineering task and, as such, required a breadth of disciplines not available to a lot of smaller companies with employee numbers below 50. However, Bradley McEwan made it clear that he believed that the general automation in terms of mechanical motions were already defined by the time systems engineers came into the equation and that the problems that usually occurred did so at the design stage.
Highlighting this, when asked how many customers actually gave them a proper specification when they were building linear systems, Andrew Smith's answer was blunt: "Between zero and zero". John Loonam concurred, describing as "literally a handful" the number of customers who had done this. Martin Wooler said: "We often get promised a spec, but what we actually get is usually a drawing."
Jock Hall put this in perspective, however, saying: "If you can specify, you're three quarters of the way there already. It's getting to that point that's the problem."
There then followed presentations by Schaeffler and Rockwell Automation. Schaeffler's John Loonam used the opportunity to dispel a number of widely-held myths about linear motion technology. Amongst these were that linear must always be straight, that it cannot be used in heavy engineering, that it is not stiff enough and can flex and that it is invariably too expensive for most engineering applications. He disproved these misconceptions with a range of examples from Schaeffler's experience in the field.
Regarding the point about heavy engineering, it was pointed out that Schaeffler's linear solutions were employed in steelworks for the movement of saws and transfer lines and that it can be used in the nuclear industry as specialised coatings and materials are now available to meet the requirements of these harsh environments.
Rockwell's presentation focused on case studies showing the potential benefits of the technology in technical, financial and logistical terms. In one of these examples, at contact lens manufacturer Cooper Vision, the task was to develop a new, high-speed manufacturing process that reduced mould take-out times by 40% and thereby improved cycle times overall. In fact, using linear motor stages with lightened slides, Rockwell actually reduced mould take-out times by 50%, reducing cycle times by 0.1 seconds, which equated to an increase of 300,000 products per year. The implications went beyond this, however, as Andrew Smith made clear. "Each of their sites had reached capacity. The OEM originally didn't see that, although this may have cost a third more than a standard solution, the implications were massive in that they didn't have to build a new plant, while payback time was less than three months per machine."
These examples again highlighted the degree to which application support was key to the increased adoption of linear motion technology, with Andrew Smith pointing out that early involvement at the design stage of one of the projects he had mentioned had probably had probably avoided 95% of the problems that might otherwise have been encountered. He did concede, however, that this level of support did cause its own set of problems at the moment. "It's a hugely expensive sales process at the moment. However, we have a responsibility to develop tools and educate customers and I believe that in the next three to five years, levels of awareness will grow as a result." Martin Wooler also made clear the level of support necessary at the moment, saying: "It's a consultative sell rather than just box-shifting."
Nick Campbell made it clear that he felt that, while there may be a knowledge gap on the part of the OEMs, there was also a problem at some points of the manufacturer level as well, saying: "We need prompt, technically-competent post-sales support. I occasionally see sales people who are absolutely clueless about the technical products we are trying to sell and who appear to have no technical back-up."
Asked to arrive at a set of conclusions that Eureka's readers should take away from the debate, Bradley McEwan said: "Customers need to understand that there is a benefit in educating themselves and consider benefits such as the mechanical simplification delivered by linear motion, as well as the energy efficiencies offered by lower friction."
The panel also felt it was crucial to impress on people that linear motion was now a mature technology and that the risk factor was nowhere near as great as some imagine. "People don't realise it's already there," said John Loonam. "They don't realise that there are highly successful examples and there is a lot of technical help available."
James McMath also stressed the relative maturity of the technology, saying: "On a simple level, I've been doing this for 10 years, which should be a comfort to the customer." Summing this up, Bradley McEwan pointed out: "Linear motion is no longer 'bleeding edge', it's leading edge."
Participants:
Dr Nick Campbell, Project Manager, Inca Digital Printers
John Loonam, Linear Technology Specialist, Schaeffler
Andrew Smith, Team Leader, Commercial Engineering, Rockwell Automation
Bradley McEwan, Commercial Engineer, Rockwell Automation
James McMath, Sales Manager – UK Encoder Sales, Renishaw
Martin Wooler, Marketing Manager, Zettlex UK
Jock Hall, Senior Partner, Spinoff Technical Systems
|
|
| |
Author
Paul Fanning
|
| |
| |
|
| |
This material is protected by Findlay Media copyright 2012.
See Terms and Conditions.
One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not.
For multiple copies contact the sales team.
|
| |
|
|
| |
To comment on news stories or blogs you need to complete our 60 second registration
process. Once completed this then allows you to download any and all white papers,
register for e-zines and access our detailed supplier directory for FREE.
If you are all ready a registered user then enter your e-mail address and login.
You will need to have logged in prior to entering your comments in the boxes provided.
|
|
|