Ohio Industrial Robots

5 EOAT Design Houses in Ohio .

The importance of automation and robots in all manufacturing industries is growing. Industrial robots have replaced human beings in a wide variety of industries. Robots outperform humans in jobs that require precision, speed, endurance, and reliability. Robots safely perform dirty and dangerous jobs.

When it comes to design your robotic arm, we are located in Ohio and we can design your Plastic Injection Molding Machine.

Traditional manufacturing robotic applications include material handling (pick and place), assembling, painting, welding, packaging, palletizing, product inspection and testing. Industrial robots are used in a diverse range of industries including automotive, electronics, medical, food production, biotech, pharmaceutical, and machinery.

EOAT or End of Arm Tooling is an essential part of the process. You need a specialist for every job, and you can think about your tool as this person.

Mouldable Plastic

Obviously enough, one of the first things many people want to know when getting started with scrolling as a hobby is what saw to buy. Whether you are looking to purchase your first scroll saw, or you are looking to upgrade to a better one, there are many things to consider. In this article I will attempt to touch on all aspects so that you are able to make an informed decision. I will also make some recommendations based on personal experience and what I feel is the general consensus of the scroll sawyers I have discussed the matter with.

Important Considerations

Blade Changing and Blade Holders: The saw should accept standard 5" pinless blades. A lot of scrollwork simply cannot be done with a saw that requires pinned blades. While pinned blades have some advantages, they have one very big disadvantage: You can't cut any small inside detail cuts since you have to drill a very big hole to get the blade's pin through.

Also, how easy is it to change a blade? Is a tool required for this? Some scroll saw projects have hundreds of holes. This means you have to remove one end of the blade from the holder and thread it through the wood and re-mount it in the holder more times than you can count. Be sure the process is comfortable and relatively easy to do. A saw in which the arm can be raised and which holds itself in this position is most desirable as it makes this process much easier as do tool-less blade holders.

Variable speed: A great many saws offer variable speed and you should not have a problem finding this feature in any price range. Sometimes you will want to slow the blade down just to cut slower, other times you must slow it down to prevent the blade from burning the edges of the wood as you cut. Some scroll saws require belt changing to change speeds. Personally, I would highly recommend a saw an electronic speed control.

Vibration: Vibration is very distracting when cutting and must be kept to a bare minimum. Some saws inherently vibrate more by design. This feature tends to be very much dependent on the cost of the particular saw. Vibration can be reduced by mounting the saw to a stand. A sturdily mounted saw and heavier saw/stand combination will reduce vibration. Many companies offer stands purpose built for their saws.

Size Specifications: Manufacturers often list the maximum cutting thickness of their saws. Since this is always more than 2", you can ignore this as you likely will never want to cut anything thicker than that on a scroll saw.

The depth of the throat however is something you may want to consider if you think you will be cutting very large projects. A small throat will limit how big of a piece you can swing around on the table while you cut. For many this is not a very big deal since it is somewhat difficult and unpleasant to swing around a big piece of wood on a scroll saw. This limit can also be circumvented by the use of spiral blades which don't require the work to be rotated at all.

A most notable difference between the Excalibur and other saws is that the head of the saw tilts rather than the table. This is a nice advantage if you intend to do a lot of angled cutting. The one feature that I personally am leery about is that you only have a quick release for the tension at the front of the saw's upper arm and the fine adjustment is at the back of the arm. This is a relatively recent change to the saw however I have not seen any negative feedback about this setup. Theoretically, once you have set the fine adjustment, you don't have to adjust it very often and you just need the quick release when undoing/redoing the blade to feed it through your project.

These saws are manufactured by General International, which has a reputation for quality.

Other notable mentions RBI and Eclipse both offer high end saws with great performance and low vibration. You may want to check these saws out if you can afford them. Since they are out of most people's price range, I have not heard a whole lot of feedback on them. In my opinion, many of these models do however have inconveniently located controls and/or require tools for blade changes which do give me cause for concern.

Hegner offers four different models starting at about $700 and going all the way to $2400. The lowest end model "Multimax 14-E" is only single speed which I would definitely stay away from. In my opinion there are several better choices for a comparable or cheaper price. The $2400 industrial "Polymax" model requires belt changing to change the speed which is an inconvenience. Because of this issue and the high price tag, I would only consider this model for a truly industrial purpose. This leaves us with the Mutimax 18-V and 22-V models to consider.

All Hegner saws require tools for blade changes. This fact, in addition to what I would personally consider an inconvenient control layout would make me think twice about a Hegner. That being said, most people who own Hegners are very happy with the quality and usability of their saws. Since I have not personally used one, I will leave this matter for your further consideration if you can afford a saw in this price range.

Conclusion

I hope this article has provided you with enough information to allow you to make the best possible investment of your money so that you can start with or upgrade to a scroll saw that will provide you years of scrolling pleasure.

Industrial Robot Automation

?

An excavator is an engineering vehicle that is used for digging or refilling of big holes. The basic structure of an excavator comprises of the arm, the bucket and tracks. The drive and power source of the excavator is one of the major components of this equipment.

Basically, excavators run on diesel as the main power source since it produces a higher horsepower compared to gasoline. Also, diesel is more suited for heavy duty jobs to power the engine that drives the whole machine. This means that it is responsible for powering the hydraulic arm for digging and lifting mechanism as well as the tracks that are used for its mobility.

The first task to be taken care of when operating an excavator is controlling the dozer blade. First, you have to lower the controls on the left hand into position before putting on the safety belt. The next task is controlling the bulldozer blade by moving it up and down to position the blade securely into the ground for stability. The bucket at the end of the arm is the controlled by use of the joystick to perform different operations such as digging or scooping. Safety should however be highly exercised whenever you operate an excavator to avoid any mishaps.

Vacuum Gripper

Amanda Plastic Injection Molding

How to Find a Plastic Injection Molding Companies in Amanda ?

Whether the fabricator’s store is large or small, the Ironworker is the backbone. The Ironworker isn’t a single machine; it is five machines united into an engineering wonder. It has much more versatility than most people would imagine. The five working sections that are involved in the make-up of this machine are a punch, a section shear, a bar shear, a plate shear, and a coper-notcher.

A number of the cheaper ironworkers are constructed to employ a fulcrum where the ram shakes back and forth, making the punch go into the die at a small angle. This normally leads to the eroding of the punch and die on the front rims. The higher quality machines integrate a ram which moves in a direct vertical line and utilizes modifiable gibs and guides to insure a constant traveling route.

Plastic Injection Machine

When you look for a End of Arm Tooling (EOAT)  that develop a Plastic Injection Molding Companies in Amanda, looks for experience and not only pricing.

That devotes more life to the tooling, and allows the punch to penetrate the die right in the middle in order to capitalize on the machine’s total tonnage.

When looking for a design house that designs a Plastic Injection Molding Companies in Amanda  don’t look just in Ohio , other States also have great providers.

Injection Molding Materials

Industrial Robot Automation

?

How to cure diabetes without medicine is relatively easy if you are vigilant about the management of your diabetes. It is important to make sure that you do not take it upon yourself to give up your medication without the consultation of your doctor first. You will have to work closely with your doctor to make sure that you do not cause yourself more harm.

How to cure diabetes without medicine can be achieved with a healthy well balanced diet and regular daily exercise. This will take some time to implement, but it will definitely be worth it once it is in place. The most valuable tool you can arm yourself with is a food and exercise diary, this will allow you to work out which foods and exercises do not work for you and by knowing this information you can avoid them altogether and be well on your way to curing your diabetes without medicine.

The best way to do all this is to have your self a diabetes diet plan, make a standard diet plan for one week, get a different diet plan for a few weeks. Then implement the week 1 plan, then week 2, and then week 3. Once you have reached the end of week 3 for example, go back to week one and take out one food item to see if it makes a difference to your blood sugar readings, this will be how you find out what works for you and what doesn't.

By implementing this diabetes diet plan you will be able to cure diabetes without medicine so that you can achieve optimum health.

Injection Moulding Manufacturers

Intel dominated and defined the semiconductor landscape during the PC era on two complementary fronts — silicon process technology and computing architecture (x86). Through its partnership with Microsoft, Intel enjoyed a near complete monopoly over the computing landscape during the PC era. That dominance began to erode with the emergence of two Segment Zero markets (Link) for Intel — embedded computing and mobile computing. The company that under the leadership of Andy Grove had successfully identified and vanquished at least two prior disruptive threats (Japanese memory makers in the 1980s and low cost PCs in the early 1990s) failed to successfully prepare for the next disruption — mobile computing and the ecosystem pioneered by ARM, the leader in low-cost/low-power architecture. While Intel pioneered the era of the standalone CPU with a vertically integrated business model, ARM enabled a massive lateral design/foundry ecosystem and pioneered the era of the mobile SoC (system-on-a-chip).

CPU vs. SoC

In the CPU space, chip functionality is largely determined by the computing core (e.g. Pentium, Athlon) and transistor performance is the critical metric. In the SoC space, the core is just one among a variety of IP blocks that are used to independently deliver functionality. Intel’s foray into SoC technology started in the early 2000s and was largely a response to the success of the foundry ecosystem. However, Intel’s SoC process technology has typically been implemented 1–2 years behind its mainstream CPU technology, which historically has focused on transistor scaling and performance. The foundries within the ecosystem instead focused on integrating disparate functional IP blocks on a chip while also aggressively scaling interconnect density.

The semiconductor industry today is increasingly driven by low-power consumer electronics (primarily smartphones) and SoC shipments now dominate total silicon volume. The sheer volume of desktop class computing chips like Apple A9 SoCs shipped to date has in turn dramatically improved the competitiveness of the foundry ecosystem (led by TSMC) compared to Intel. Until a few years ago, Intel’s process technology lead was unquestioned. That lead is now greatly diminished as the foundry ecosystem is on track to ship more 64 bit SoC chips than Intel by the end of this year.

The ascendance of ARM has not only displaced Intel’s leadership on the architecture front (x86) but indirectly, also on the process technology front by enabling the foundry ecosystem to ship incredibly large volumes of leading edge silicon and dramatically speeding up the manufacturing yield learning curve. Intel was late in recognizing the importance of the SoC and now finds itself playing catch-up to a strong ecosystem led by ARM on the architecture front and TSMC on the silicon process technology front.

Compounding this trend further is the reality that after 50 years of delivering consistent gains in power, performance and cost; transistor scaling is finally entering an era of diminishing returns where further shrinking the device is not only costly, but provides incremental gains in performance and power.

Meanwhile, the ARM ecosystem is also steadily making inroads into the high-end space traditionally dominated by Intel. Several new tablet and laptop computers (e.g. Google Pixel C) use SoC chips designed by fabless companies instead of CPU solutions from Intel. Over time, SoCs became much more powerful and competitive and now pose a meaningful threat to the standalone CPU. The predominance of the Intel-Microsoft partnership based on x86 architecture is waning and a huge swath of the mobile computing space is now supported by low cost Chinese design houses like MediaTek, AllWinner, RockChip and Spreadtrum that use ARM architecture and foundries like TSMC, SMIC or UMC.

The emergence of the SoC was thus a strategic inflection point for both Intel and the ARM ecosystem alike. While the silicon landscape during the PC era was defined by Intel and the CPU, it is fair to say that the silicon landscape during the mobile era continues to be defined by the SoC and the foundry ecosystem led by ARM and TSMC. In many ways, Intel’s ability to compete in the SoC space will determine the direction of the chip wars in the next wave of computing (IoT).

Transistor Technology

The process technology underlying CPUs and SoCs is similar, however the design points for each can be vastly different. For example, a CPU design requires fewer transistor variants spanning a limited range of leakage and speed. On the other hand, SoC designs require many more transistor variants spanning a much wider range of leakage and speed. SoC technology also needs to support higher supply voltages for IO devices (e.g. 1.8V, 3.3V) in addition to the nominal supply voltage for core devices (e.g. 0.9V) These differences, though subtle, require very different mindsets in transistor design and process architecture.

Intel’s focus on transistor performance can be traced back to the height of the PC wars when the benchmark was clock speed. While Intel focused on transistor performance, the foundries adapted Intel’s transistor innovations for their own SoC integration needs. In addition, they aggressively pursued metal density scaling and cost reduction. While Intel pursued a limited vertical functional integration, the foundries developed a lateral ecosystem and designed transistors for a variety of vendors that independently optimized functionality for each IP block (CPU, GPU, radio, modem, GPS, IO, SERDES, etc.).

This vast ecosystem of existing design IP is now a significant influence on the adoption of the next transistor architecture. Arguably, the foundries are today better positioned for the SoC era. By the end of 2015, TSMC will have shipped well over 100 million units of Apple’s A9 SoC. These processors are made in 16nm technology and will set new benchmarks for cost, power and connectivity features. The Apple A9 processor is possibly the most highly integrated SoC running on the most advanced silicon process technology (at TSMC and also Samsung). Intel’s advantage at the transistor level thus allowed it to win the CPU space, but the ecosystem has the advantage at the system level and is poised to win the SoC space.

In the mobile and IoT era, packing as many features on a chip as possible at the lowest integrated system cost and power will win. The transistor technology that is most compatible with all the IP needs of a complex SoC at the lowest cost will thus have the upper hand.

The Post-PC Era: Intel in an Open Ecosystem

The slowdown in the pace of Moore’s Law, the emerging importance of the SoC and the rapid growth of the mobile market all tend to favor an open, plug-and-play foundry and design ecosystem. One could expect that the ecosystem developing around ARM will continue to nip at Intel’s core markets as the development of ARM-based processors for laptops and servers accelerates. This emerging threat to Intel and Intel’s response to it will define the industry over the coming decade.

The operating system (OS) war between Microsoft and Apple in the 1980s came to define the PC and software industries. Microsoft’s open ecosystem model won as Windows became the de-facto OS for machines made by all kinds of PC makers. While Microsoft promoted an open ecosystem in the larger PC industry, ironically it spawned a closed ecosystem within the semiconductor industry. The Wintel alliance ensured that Windows only ran on x86 architecture which was pioneered and owned by Intel. The closed ecosystem hugely benefited Intel as it went on almost unchallenged to win the desktop, laptop and server space (AMD also used x86 yet could never match Intel’s scale or manufacturing expertise). A hallmark of the post-PC era is the emergence of an open ecosystem within the semiconductor industry.

Unlike the Windows/x86 dominance of the past, the post-PC era is being defined by competing OS options (iOS, Android or Windows) and competing processor architectures (x86 or ARM). Today, the momentum is in favor of ARM-based operating systems as the vast majority of mobile devices being shipped today run iOS or Android (ARM architecture).

The chip wars will be fought in this fragmented and open ecosystem on three fronts — SoC (system integration), CPU (core architecture) and silicon (foundry technology). While performance and power will continue to be important benchmarks, the open ecosystem supporting a worldwide consumer market will make cost a key success metric on each battlefront.

Battlefront #1 — SoC (System Integration)

In the mobile SoC space, the battle for processor architecture will be between Intel on the one hand and incumbents like Qualcomm, Samsung and Apple on the other. In the mobile, power constrained space, it is more efficient to integrate a variety of hardware accelerators on a single chip to deliver custom functionality as opposed to implementing a general purpose core serving most functions. Low power cores are supplemented with elements as disparate as an on-chip radio, global positioning system (GPS), modem, image and audio/video processor, universal serial bus (USB) connectivity and a graphics processing unit (GPU). An open ecosystem is far more cost-effective for such modular, plug-and-play system-level integration.

A typical CPU design (Intel Core-M) dominated by core/graphics compared to a highly integrated SoC (NVIDIA Tegra 2). The integrated SoC design has obvious advantages in mobile formfactors.

Historically, Intel, being an integrated device manufacturer (IDM) has independently designed most of the functional IP blocks, while ensuring that each uses Intel transistor technology and process design rules. Intel’s process technology leadership has benefited it enormously in the CPU space giving its designers access to best-in-class transistor performance. However, Intel’s ability to compete in the mobile SoC space will be determined by how well it can re-engineer its CPU process technology to meet the diverse needs of a complex mobile SoC.

If Intel can successfully design and manufacture 14nm and 10nm processes that span the full range of the performance-power spectrum required for mobile SoC applications, it will have an edge over the competition. But for Intel to compete effectively in the mobile SoC space, it will also need to offer a cost advantage. Average Selling Price (ASP) in the SoC space is a fraction of that in the CPU space. While fabless Apple can drive the best possible deal from competing foundries, IDM Intel needs to ensure that its volumes and ASPs are high enough to recoup its own development and manufacturing CapEx.

Intel may try to enhance its SoC functionality offering by way of more acquisitions like Infineon Wireless. But post-merger, porting Infineon’s foundry standard design rules to Intel’s proprietary design rules will be non-trivial (In 2015, nearly 5 years after the acquisition, Intel is yet to port Infineon’s modem chips to their own fabs and continues to make them at TSMC!). By contrast, the Qualcomm acquisition of Atheros likely proved to be more seamless since the IP was from the open ecosystem and already foundry compatible.

Battlefront #2 — CPU (Core Architecture)

The main battle on the CPU front is between Intel/x86 and ARM architecture. While Intel historically has had the upper hand in performance, ARM-designed cores have delivered superior performance/watt.

To effectively compete against ARM, Intel will need to design its low-power Atom cores in the most power-efficient way possible. To design a true low-power core, Intel may need to decouple the Atom from legacy x86-based architecture and develop a new ground-up design that delivers highly competitive performance/watt.

Intel will also have to be in aggressive catch-up mode as it tries to reverse the momentum of an already large, established and robust ARM software ecosystem. In the initial years of the PC era, as x86 became the predominant CPU architecture, an entire ecosystem of application software was spawned that was designed to run solely on x86. This effectively precluded or seriously hindered competing architectures like PowerPC from ever gaining a foothold in the marketplace. Analogously, in the present day, ARM architecture is significantly further along in achieving critical mass in the mobile SoC space. The prevalence of ARM in a range of post-PC devices from smartphones and tablets (90% market share) to televisions and cars has placed ARM in a commanding position to inhibit the newer Intel Atom architecture from achieving traction. Practically speaking, for Intel to gain a meaningful share in the mobile market, it now has to ensure compatibility with the ARM software ecosystem. This again, will force Intel to compete on price which will limit how much revenue it can eventually generate. This is a dynamic that Intel never had to face in the PC segment.

Battlefront #3 — Silicon (Foundry Technology)

Intel’s ability to make the best performing transistor at the highest possible yields and volumes is unparalleled. This capability served it immensely well in the closed ecosystem when Intel was essentially competing against itself in the quest to make a smaller and faster transistor. In the closed ecosystem, performance trumped power; and design flexibility and high ASPs ensured that development cost was not a significant limiter.

In the open ecosystem, however, the ability to integrate disparate functional accelerators in the most power-efficient and cost-effective manner is paramount. As an example, TSMC is able to deliver the highly successful and functional A9 processor for Apple using a state-of-the-art 16nm transistor process and integrate a variety of complex IP blocks while keeping the ASP under $20. TSMC’s minimum metal pitch at the 16nm node is larger (i.e. less dense) than that of Intel at the more advanced 14nm node, yet the A9 SoC can offer better power efficiency than a comparable 14nm CPU at an acceptable performance point and much lower price point and a much smaller form-factor.

In the post-PC era, mobile and IoT computing will have a larger influence on the semiconductor landscape. The success metrics in the new landscape are not just higher transistor performance but higher system functionality, lower system cost and lower power.

Based on the above discussion and judgment, the following trends are likely to define the semiconductor industry over the next decade.

  1. Shrinking pool of advanced semiconductor fabs: The economics of Moore’s Law and the advent of mobile computing have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of advanced semiconductor manufacturing sources. Just 3 major entitities (Intel, Samsung, TSMC) now offer unique 16nm or advanced technology. (Globalfoundries is effectively just a manufacturing partner for Samsung). A wildcard here is SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, Shanghai). Even though it is a relative newcomer, SMIC is extremely driven and has the full backing of the Chinese government which has made advanced semiconductor manufacturing a national priority. SMICs entry at 14nm (by 2020) may change the foundry landscape by dramatically altering silicon wafer price-points.
  2. Making things smaller doesn't help much anymore: The 28nm node will be the longest running planar transistor technology. In a departure from prior technologies, and in response to plateauing transistor cost, the leading foundry (TSMC) has developed over 5 flavors of the technology for all applications ranging from high performance 28HPM (FPGA, GPU, mobile SoC) to ultra-low power 28ULP (IoT edge computing). As the mobile computing era matures and the IoT computing era emerges, majority of the applications will be served by 28nm or older technology. As technology development lifecycles get longer and product lifecycles get shorter, foundries will try to extract all the goodness in an existing transistor technology before moving to the next one.
  3. Even fewer applications for advanced technologies: Only a minority of applications (e.g. high performance computing, AI/AR, machine learning, computer vision) will migrate to using sub-10nm and lower technology nodes. And these advanced nodes will also be long lived with multiple variants serving disparate power/performance/cost points.
  4. Intel CPU leadership: Intel will continue to dominate the single thread/high performance CPU/server segment, albeit with increasing competition from the ARM ecosystem. Intel’s acquisition of Altera is a defensive move aimed at creating a moat around its server leadership. However, the next five years will likely see the emergence of competitive ARM based servers. Using an open ecosystem with customizable IP will enable significant cost and power reduction for these new entrants.
  5. Lego block on-chip integration: In the power and cost competitive IoT era, on-chip integration of hardware accelerators (modem, CPU, graphics, etc) will continue to be extremely efficient. Compared to centralized CPU/GPU cores, SoCs will be far more effective, especially in the smartphone, tablet and convertible form-factors. As silicon scaling plateaus, packing as many disparate functional blocks as possible on a chip within a given transistor budget at the lowest integrated system cost and power will win. Companies will try to expand their footprint by capturing more real estate on the chip, either through consolidation or on their own.
  6. Ascendance of the SoC: Intel’s 14nm CPU (Skylake, 2015) and Apple/TSMC’s 16nm SoC (Apple A9, 2015) are two marquee technologies/products that will provide a barometer on the semiconductor landscape. Several benchmarking results indicate that the A9 is perhaps the most efficient mobile SoC with unparalleled performance/power metrics. This match-up will have remarkable implications — not only will it validate the rise of Apple as the dominant SoC design team, it will also suggest a vulnerability in Intel’s process technology leadership. It suggests that TSMC could go toe-to-toe with Intel on radical and highly complex transistor architectures (16/14nm tri-gate), while also supporting best-in-class SoC technology which is the enabling platform for mobile and IoT computing. Intel will need to dramatically improve its SoC offering in the years to come in order to be competitive in the SoC/IoT space.
  7. Slowing cadence of Moore’s Law: Two technologies that have the potential to significantly influence the economics of Moore’s Law and disrupt the industry cost model are (a) 450mm wafer size and (b) EUV lithography. However, a glut of fully depreciated 300mm fab infrastructure and decades long slow progress in the EUV tooling roadmap will make it a difficult value proposition at least in the foreseeable future. Conventional Moore’s Law scaling is likely to give way to more orthogonal scaling approaches (More-than-Moore) including 3D chip stacking and system/package level integration of heterogeneous chips.
Injection Moulding Manufacturers

You Can Find a EOAT in Amanda here:

 



Check the Weather in Amanda, Ohio

Ashley Moulding Company

How to Find a Ati Industrial Automation in Ashley ?

Whether the fabricator’s shop is large or small, the Ironworker is the backbone. The Ironworker isn’t a single machine; it is five machines united into an engineering wonder. It has much more versatility than most people would imagine. The five working sections that are involved in the make-up of this machine are a punch, a section shear, a bar shear, a plate shear, and a coper-notcher.

A number of the cheaper ironworkers are constructed to employ a fulcrum where the ram shakes back and forth, making the punch go into the die at a small angle. This normally leads to the erosion of the punch and succumb on the front rims. The higher quality machines integrate a ram which moves in a direct vertical line and utilizes modifiable gibs and guidebooks to guarantee a constant traveling path.

Injection Molding Cost

When you look for a End of Arm Tooling (EOAT)  that develop a Ati Industrial Automation in Ashley, looks for experience and not only pricing.

That dedicates more life to the tooling, and allows the punch to penetrate the succumb right in the middle in order to capitalize on the machine’s total tonnage.

When looking for a design house that designs a Ati Industrial Automation in Ashley  don’t look just in Ohio , other States also have great providers.

Eoat Gripper

How Will the Chip Wars be Won?

?

An excavator is an engineering vehicle that is used for digging or refilling of big holes. The basic structure of an excavator comprises of the arm, the bucket and tracks. The drive and power source of the excavator is one of the major components of this equipment.

Basically, excavators run on diesel as the main power source since it produces a higher horsepower compared to gasoline. Also, diesel is more suited for heavy duty jobs to power the engine that drives the whole machine. This means that it is responsible for powering the hydraulic arm for digging and lifting mechanism as well as the tracks that are used for its mobility.

The first task to be taken care of when operating an excavator is controlling the dozer blade. First, you have to lower the controls on the left hand into position before putting on the safety belt. The next task is controlling the bulldozer blade by moving it up and down to position the blade securely into the ground for stability. The bucket at the end of the arm is the controlled by use of the joystick to perform different operations such as digging or scooping. Safety should however be highly exercised whenever you operate an excavator to avoid any mishaps.

Injection Molding Press

Sprinklers may get bent or broken by accident. Most of them are made from hard materials that do not get damaged easily but accidents do happen. Broken Arm Spring can be repaired by, pulling the fulcrum pin with a diagonal or side cutting pilers. You should press the pin in the body and it should come out when pulled.

Please go on performing as we suggest, hold the arm in your hand such that the cup part of the spoon facing you and spoon end of arm pointed to your right, now feed end of spring into the hole which is on your right then on through the hole on the left from the back side. Now look end of spring pointing towards you. Let's bend over end near about half with the help pf needle needle node pilers.

The length of spring is normally more than required. Hold arm with spoon end pointing toward you looking down on top of arm. Now cut off the tag end of the spring at the center line of the arm. Now install arm in the body. With the help of hammer drive fulcrum pin into lower hole. Pull arm around as far as it will go, away from nozzle and feed upper end of spring into the hole that is at a distance from the nozzle. Now feed through the other hole so it extends about "1/8" and bend this extended spring end over sharply to clinch. Rain Bird distributors and dealers provide Arm weights for some sprinklers model in order to maintain proper spring tension.

Injection Molding Materials

You Can Find a EOAT in Ashley here:

 



Check the Weather in Ashley, Ohio

Bannock Robotic Arm

How to Find a End Effector in Bannock ?

Whether the fabricator’s shop is large or small, the Ironworker is the backbone. The Ironworker isn’t a single machine; it is five machines united into an engineering wonder. It has much more versatility than most people would imagine. The five working sections that are involved in the make-up of this machine are a punch, a section shear, a bar shear, a plate shear, and a coper-notcher.

A number of the cheaper ironworkers are constructed to employ a fulcrum where the ram shakes back and forth, making the punch go into the die at a small angle. This normally leads to the erosion of the punch and die on the front rims. The higher quality machines integrate a ram which moves in a direct vertical line and utilizes modifiable gibs and guides to insure a constant traveling route.

Plastic Injection Machine

When you look for a End of Arm Tooling (EOAT)  that develop a End Effector in Bannock, looks for experience and not only pricing.

That dedicates more life to the tooling, and allows the punch to penetrate the succumb right in the middle in order to capitalize on the machine’s total tonnage.

When looking for a design house that designs a End Effector in Bannock  don’t look just in Ohio , other States also have great providers.

Custom Plastic Injection Molding

How to Repair Sprinklers

?

AWS recently announced its new per second billing for its EC2 instances and EBS volumes. This is perfect timing to talk about cost optimization. After a short intro we will guide you through some real world examples and best practices that we use at Teads to optimize our infrastructure costs.

The cloud computing opportunity and its traps

One of the advantages of cloud computing is its ability to fit the infrastructure to your needs, you only pay for what you really use. That is how most hyper growth startups have managed their incredible ascents.

Most companies migrating to the cloud embrace the “lift & shift” strategy, replicating what was once on premises.

You most likely won’t save a penny with this first step.

Main reasons being:

  • Your applications do not support elasticity yet,
  • Your applications rely on complex backend you need to migrate with (RabbitMQ, Cassandra, Galera clusters, etc.),
  • Your code relies on being executed in a known network environment and most likely uses NFS as distributed storage mechanism.

Once in the cloud, you need to “cloudify” your infrastructure.

Then, and only then, will you have access to virtually infinite computing power and storage.

Watch out, this apparent freedom can lead to very serious drifts: over provisioning, under optimizing your code or even forgetting to “turn off the lights” by letting that small PoC run more than necessary using that very nice r3.8xlarge instance.

Essentially, you have just replaced your need for capacity planning by a need for cost monitoring and optimization.

The dark side of cloud computing

At Teads we were “born in the cloud” and we are very happy about it.

One of our biggest pain today with our cloud providers is the complexity of their pricing.

It is designed to look very simple at the first glance (usually based on simple metrics like $/GB/month or $/hour or, more recently, $/second) but as you expand and go into a multi-region infrastructure mixing lots of products, you will have a hard time tracking the ever-growing cost of your cloud infrastructure.

For example, the cost of putting a file on S3 and serving it from there includes four different lines of billing:

  • Actual storage cost (80% of your bill)
  • Cost of the HTTP PUT request (2% of your bill)
  • Cost of the many HTTP GET requests (3% of your bill)
  • Cost of the data transfer (15% of your bill)

Our take on Cost Optimization

  • Focus on structural costs - Never block short term costs increase that would speed up the business, or enable a technical migration.
  • Everyone is responsible - Provide tooling to each team to make them autonomous on their cost optimization.

The limit of cost optimization for us is when it drives more complexity in the code and less agility in the future, for a limited ROI. 
This way of thinking also helps us to tackle cost optimisation in our day to day developments.

Overall we can extend this famous quote from Kent Beck:

“Make it work, make it right, make it fast” … and then cost efficient.

Billing Hygiene

It is of the utmost importance to keep a strict billing hygiene and know your daily spends.

In some cases, it will help you identify suspicious uptrends, like a service stuck in a loop and writing a huge volume of logs to S3 or a developer that left its test infrastructure up & running during a week-end.

You need to arm yourself with a detailed monitoring of your costs and spend time looking at it every day.

You have several options to do so, starting with AWS’s own tools:

  • Billing Dashboard, giving a high level view of your main costs (Amazon S3, Amazon EC2, etc.) and a rarely accurate forecast, at least for us. Overall, it’s not detailed enough to be of use for serious monitoring.
  • Detailed Billing Report, this feature has to be enabled in your account preferences. It sends you a daily gzipped .csv file containing one line per billable item since the beginning of the month (e.g., instance A sent X Mb of data on the Internet). 
    The detailed billing is an interesting source of data once you have added custom tags to your services so that you can group your costs by feature / application / part of your infrastructure. 
    Be aware that this file is accurate within a delay of approximately two days as it takes time for AWS to compute the files. 
    UPDATE (June ‘18) Detailed Billing is officially deprecated, use the Cost and Usage Report instead.
  • Trusted Advisor, available at the business and enterprise support level, also includes a cost section with interesting optimization insights.
Trusted Advisor cost section - Courtesy of AWS
  • Cost Explorer, an interesting tool since its update in august 2017. It can be used to quickly identify trends but it is still limited as you cannot build complete dashboards with it. It is mainly a reporting tool.
Example of a Cost Explorer report — AWS documentation

Then you have several other external options to monitor the costs of your infrastructure:

  • SaaS products like Cloudyn / Cloudhealth. These solutions are really well made and will tell you how to optimize your infrastructure. Their pricing model is based on a percentage of your annual AWS bill, not on the savings that the tools will help you make, which was a show stopper for us.
  • The open source project Ice, initially developed by Netflix for their own use. Recently, the leadership of this project was transferred to the french startup Teevity who is also offering a SaaS version for a fixed fee. This could be a great option as it also handles GCP and Azure.

Building our own monitoring solution

At Teads we decided to go DIY using the detailed billings files.

We built a small Lambda function that ingests the detailed billing file into Redshift every day. This tool helps us slice and dice our data along numerous dimensions to dive deeper into our costs. We also use it to spot suspicious usage uptrends, down to the service level.

This is an example of our daily dashboard built with chart.io, each color corresponds to a service we taggedWhen zoomed on a specific service, we can quickly figure out what is expensive

On top of that, we still use a spreadsheet to integrate the reservation upfronts in order to get a complete overview and the full daily costs.

Now that we have the data, how to optimize?

Here are the 5 pillars of our cost optimization strategy.

1 - Reserved Instances (RIs)

First things first, you need to reserve your instances. Technically speaking, RIs will only make sure that you have access to the reserved resources.

At Teads our reservation strategy is based on bi-annual reservation batches and we are also evaluating higher frequencies (3 to 4 batches per year).

The right frequency should be determined by the best compromise between flexibility (handling growth, having leaner financial streams) and the ability to manage the reservations efficiently. 
In the end, managing reservations is a time consuming task.

Reservation is mostly a financial tool, you commit to pay for resources during 1 or 3 years and get a discount over the on-demand price:

  • You have two types of reservations, standard or convertible. Convertible lets you change the instance family but comes with a smaller discount compared to standard (avg. 75% vs 54% for a convertible). They are the best option to leverage future instance families in the long run.
  • Reservations come with three different payment options: Full Upfront, Partial Upfront, and No Upfront. With partial and no upfront, you pay the remaining balance monthly over the term. We prefer partial upfront since the discount rate is really close to the full upfront one (e.g. 56% vs 55% for a convertible 3-year term with partial).
  • Don’t forget that you can reserve a lot of things and not only Amazon EC2 instances: Amazon RDS, Amazon Elasticache, Amazon Redshift, Amazon DynamoDB, etc.

2 - Optimize Amazon S3

The second source of optimization is the object management on S3. Storage is cheap and infinite, but it is not a valid reason to keep all your data there forever. Many companies do not clean their data on S3, even though several trivial mechanisms could be used:

The Object Lifecycle option enables you to set simple rules for objects in a bucket :

  • Infrequent Access Storage (IAS): for application logs, set the object storage class to Infrequent Access Storage after a few days. 
    IAS will cut the storage cost by a factor of two but comes with a higher cost for requests. 
    The main drawback of IAS is that it uses 128kb blocks to store data so if you want to store a lot of smaller objects it will end up more expensive than standard storage.
  • Glacier: Amazon Glacier is a very long term archiving service, also called cold storage. 
    Here is a nice article from Cloudability if you want to dig deeper into optimizing storage costs and compare the different options.

Also, don’t forget to set up a delete policy when you think you won’t need those files anymore.

Finally, enabling a VPC Endpoint for your Amazon S3 buckets will suppress the data transfer costs between Amazon S3 and your instances.

3 - Leverage the Spot market

Spot instances enables you to use AWS’s spare computing power at a heavily discounted price. This can be very interesting depending on your workloads.

Spot instances are bought using some sort of auction model, if your bid is above the spot market rate you will get the instance and only pay the market price. However these instances can be reclaimed if the market price exceeds your bid.

At Teads, we usually bid the on-demand price to be sure that we can get the instance. We only pay the “market” rate which gives us a rebate up to 90%.

It is worth noting that:

  • You get a 2 min termination notice before your spot is reclaimed but you need to look for it.
  • Spot Instances are easy to use for non critical batch workloads and interesting for data processing, it’s a very good match with Amazon Elastic Map Reduce.

4 - Data transfer

Back in the physical world, you were used to pay for the network link between your Data Center and the Internet.

Whatever data you sent through that link was free of charge.

In the cloud, data transfer can grow to become really expensive.

You are charged for data transfer from your services to the Internet but also in-between AWS Availability Zones.

This can quickly become an issue when using distributed systems like Kafka and Cassandra that need to be deployed in different zones to be highly available and constantly exchange over the network.

Some advice:

  • If you have instances communicating with each other, you should try to locate them in the same AZ
  • Use managed services like Amazon DynamoDB or Amazon RDS as their inter-AZ replication costs is built-in their pricing
  • If you serve more than a few hundred Terabytes per months you should discuss with your account manager
  • Use Amazon CloudFront (AWS’s CDN) as much as you can when serving static files. The data transfer out rates are cheaper from CloudFront and free between CloudFront and EC2 or S3.

5 - Unused infrastructure

With a growing infrastructure, you can rapidly forget to turn off unused and idle things:

  • Detached Elastic IPs (EIPs), they are free when attached to an EC2 instance but you have to pay for it if they are not.
  • The block stores (EBS) starting with the EC2 instances are preserved when you stop your instances. As you will rarely re-attach a root EBS volume you can delete them. Also, snapshots tend to pile up over time, you should also look into it.
  • A Load Balancer (ELB) with no traffic is easy to detect and obviously useless. Still, it will cost you ~20 $/month.
  • Instances with no network activity over the last week. In a cloud context it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Trusted Advisor can help you in detecting these unnecessary expenses.

Key takeaways

Thank you for reading. This article was inspired by the talks I made during the #2 AWS Montpellier Meetup and Devops D-Day conference.

Devops D-Day 2017 — Marseille

If you like working on big cloud infrastructures and growth challenges, feel free to contact us, we are constantly looking for great teammates.

If you want to know more about Engineering at Teads:

About Teads Engineering
100+ Innovators Reinventing Digital Advertisingmedium.com Injection Molding Cost

How to cure diabetes without medicine is relatively easy if you are vigilant about the management of your diabetes. It is important to make sure that you do not take it upon yourself to give up your medication without the consultation of your doctor first. You will have to work closely with your doctor to make sure that you do not cause yourself more harm.

How to cure diabetes without medicine can be achieved with a healthy well balanced diet and regular daily exercise. This will take some time to implement, but it will definitely be worth it once it is in place. The most valuable tool you can arm yourself with is a food and exercise diary, this will allow you to work out which foods and exercises do not work for you and by knowing this information you can avoid them altogether and be well on your way to curing your diabetes without medicine.

The best way to do all this is to have your self a diabetes diet plan, make a standard diet plan for one week, get a different diet plan for a few weeks. Then implement the week 1 plan, then week 2, and then week 3. Once you have reached the end of week 3 for example, go back to week one and take out one food item to see if it makes a difference to your blood sugar readings, this will be how you find out what works for you and what doesn't.

By implementing this diabetes diet plan you will be able to cure diabetes without medicine so that you can achieve optimum health.

Pneumatic Gripper

You Can Find a EOAT in Bannock here:

 



Check the Weather in Bannock, Ohio

Bellaire Plastic Injection Molding

How to Find a Robotic Arm in Bellaire ?

Whether the fabricator’s store is large or small, the Ironworker is the backbone. The Ironworker isn’t a single machine; it is five machines united into an engineering wonder. It has much more versatility than most people would imagine. The five working sections that are involved in the make-up of this machine are a punch, a section shear, a bar shear, a plate shear, and a coper-notcher.

A number of the cheaper ironworkers are constructed to employ a fulcrum where the ram shakes back and forth, building the punch go into the die at a small angle. This normally leads to the eroding of the punch and die on the front rims. The higher quality machines incorporate a ram which moves in a direct vertical line and utilizes modifiable gibs and guidebooks to insure a constant traveling path.

End Of Arm Tooling Parts

When you look for a End of Arm Tooling (EOAT)  that develop a Robotic Arm in Bellaire, looks for experience and not only pricing.

That gives more life to the tooling, and allows the punch to penetrate the succumb right in the middle in order to capitalize on the machine’s total tonnage.

When looking for a design house that designs a Robotic Arm in Bellaire  don’t look just in Ohio , other States also have great providers.

Injection Molding Cost

Industrial Robot Automation

?

Intel dominated and defined the semiconductor landscape during the PC era on two complementary fronts — silicon process technology and computing architecture (x86). Through its partnership with Microsoft, Intel enjoyed a near complete monopoly over the computing landscape during the PC era. That dominance began to erode with the emergence of two Segment Zero markets (Link) for Intel — embedded computing and mobile computing. The company that under the leadership of Andy Grove had successfully identified and vanquished at least two prior disruptive threats (Japanese memory makers in the 1980s and low cost PCs in the early 1990s) failed to successfully prepare for the next disruption — mobile computing and the ecosystem pioneered by ARM, the leader in low-cost/low-power architecture. While Intel pioneered the era of the standalone CPU with a vertically integrated business model, ARM enabled a massive lateral design/foundry ecosystem and pioneered the era of the mobile SoC (system-on-a-chip).

CPU vs. SoC

In the CPU space, chip functionality is largely determined by the computing core (e.g. Pentium, Athlon) and transistor performance is the critical metric. In the SoC space, the core is just one among a variety of IP blocks that are used to independently deliver functionality. Intel’s foray into SoC technology started in the early 2000s and was largely a response to the success of the foundry ecosystem. However, Intel’s SoC process technology has typically been implemented 1–2 years behind its mainstream CPU technology, which historically has focused on transistor scaling and performance. The foundries within the ecosystem instead focused on integrating disparate functional IP blocks on a chip while also aggressively scaling interconnect density.

The semiconductor industry today is increasingly driven by low-power consumer electronics (primarily smartphones) and SoC shipments now dominate total silicon volume. The sheer volume of desktop class computing chips like Apple A9 SoCs shipped to date has in turn dramatically improved the competitiveness of the foundry ecosystem (led by TSMC) compared to Intel. Until a few years ago, Intel’s process technology lead was unquestioned. That lead is now greatly diminished as the foundry ecosystem is on track to ship more 64 bit SoC chips than Intel by the end of this year.

The ascendance of ARM has not only displaced Intel’s leadership on the architecture front (x86) but indirectly, also on the process technology front by enabling the foundry ecosystem to ship incredibly large volumes of leading edge silicon and dramatically speeding up the manufacturing yield learning curve. Intel was late in recognizing the importance of the SoC and now finds itself playing catch-up to a strong ecosystem led by ARM on the architecture front and TSMC on the silicon process technology front.

Compounding this trend further is the reality that after 50 years of delivering consistent gains in power, performance and cost; transistor scaling is finally entering an era of diminishing returns where further shrinking the device is not only costly, but provides incremental gains in performance and power.

Meanwhile, the ARM ecosystem is also steadily making inroads into the high-end space traditionally dominated by Intel. Several new tablet and laptop computers (e.g. Google Pixel C) use SoC chips designed by fabless companies instead of CPU solutions from Intel. Over time, SoCs became much more powerful and competitive and now pose a meaningful threat to the standalone CPU. The predominance of the Intel-Microsoft partnership based on x86 architecture is waning and a huge swath of the mobile computing space is now supported by low cost Chinese design houses like MediaTek, AllWinner, RockChip and Spreadtrum that use ARM architecture and foundries like TSMC, SMIC or UMC.

The emergence of the SoC was thus a strategic inflection point for both Intel and the ARM ecosystem alike. While the silicon landscape during the PC era was defined by Intel and the CPU, it is fair to say that the silicon landscape during the mobile era continues to be defined by the SoC and the foundry ecosystem led by ARM and TSMC. In many ways, Intel’s ability to compete in the SoC space will determine the direction of the chip wars in the next wave of computing (IoT).

Transistor Technology

The process technology underlying CPUs and SoCs is similar, however the design points for each can be vastly different. For example, a CPU design requires fewer transistor variants spanning a limited range of leakage and speed. On the other hand, SoC designs require many more transistor variants spanning a much wider range of leakage and speed. SoC technology also needs to support higher supply voltages for IO devices (e.g. 1.8V, 3.3V) in addition to the nominal supply voltage for core devices (e.g. 0.9V) These differences, though subtle, require very different mindsets in transistor design and process architecture.

Intel’s focus on transistor performance can be traced back to the height of the PC wars when the benchmark was clock speed. While Intel focused on transistor performance, the foundries adapted Intel’s transistor innovations for their own SoC integration needs. In addition, they aggressively pursued metal density scaling and cost reduction. While Intel pursued a limited vertical functional integration, the foundries developed a lateral ecosystem and designed transistors for a variety of vendors that independently optimized functionality for each IP block (CPU, GPU, radio, modem, GPS, IO, SERDES, etc.).

This vast ecosystem of existing design IP is now a significant influence on the adoption of the next transistor architecture. Arguably, the foundries are today better positioned for the SoC era. By the end of 2015, TSMC will have shipped well over 100 million units of Apple’s A9 SoC. These processors are made in 16nm technology and will set new benchmarks for cost, power and connectivity features. The Apple A9 processor is possibly the most highly integrated SoC running on the most advanced silicon process technology (at TSMC and also Samsung). Intel’s advantage at the transistor level thus allowed it to win the CPU space, but the ecosystem has the advantage at the system level and is poised to win the SoC space.

In the mobile and IoT era, packing as many features on a chip as possible at the lowest integrated system cost and power will win. The transistor technology that is most compatible with all the IP needs of a complex SoC at the lowest cost will thus have the upper hand.

The Post-PC Era: Intel in an Open Ecosystem

The slowdown in the pace of Moore’s Law, the emerging importance of the SoC and the rapid growth of the mobile market all tend to favor an open, plug-and-play foundry and design ecosystem. One could expect that the ecosystem developing around ARM will continue to nip at Intel’s core markets as the development of ARM-based processors for laptops and servers accelerates. This emerging threat to Intel and Intel’s response to it will define the industry over the coming decade.

The operating system (OS) war between Microsoft and Apple in the 1980s came to define the PC and software industries. Microsoft’s open ecosystem model won as Windows became the de-facto OS for machines made by all kinds of PC makers. While Microsoft promoted an open ecosystem in the larger PC industry, ironically it spawned a closed ecosystem within the semiconductor industry. The Wintel alliance ensured that Windows only ran on x86 architecture which was pioneered and owned by Intel. The closed ecosystem hugely benefited Intel as it went on almost unchallenged to win the desktop, laptop and server space (AMD also used x86 yet could never match Intel’s scale or manufacturing expertise). A hallmark of the post-PC era is the emergence of an open ecosystem within the semiconductor industry.

Unlike the Windows/x86 dominance of the past, the post-PC era is being defined by competing OS options (iOS, Android or Windows) and competing processor architectures (x86 or ARM). Today, the momentum is in favor of ARM-based operating systems as the vast majority of mobile devices being shipped today run iOS or Android (ARM architecture).

The chip wars will be fought in this fragmented and open ecosystem on three fronts — SoC (system integration), CPU (core architecture) and silicon (foundry technology). While performance and power will continue to be important benchmarks, the open ecosystem supporting a worldwide consumer market will make cost a key success metric on each battlefront.

Battlefront #1 — SoC (System Integration)

In the mobile SoC space, the battle for processor architecture will be between Intel on the one hand and incumbents like Qualcomm, Samsung and Apple on the other. In the mobile, power constrained space, it is more efficient to integrate a variety of hardware accelerators on a single chip to deliver custom functionality as opposed to implementing a general purpose core serving most functions. Low power cores are supplemented with elements as disparate as an on-chip radio, global positioning system (GPS), modem, image and audio/video processor, universal serial bus (USB) connectivity and a graphics processing unit (GPU). An open ecosystem is far more cost-effective for such modular, plug-and-play system-level integration.

A typical CPU design (Intel Core-M) dominated by core/graphics compared to a highly integrated SoC (NVIDIA Tegra 2). The integrated SoC design has obvious advantages in mobile formfactors.

Historically, Intel, being an integrated device manufacturer (IDM) has independently designed most of the functional IP blocks, while ensuring that each uses Intel transistor technology and process design rules. Intel’s process technology leadership has benefited it enormously in the CPU space giving its designers access to best-in-class transistor performance. However, Intel’s ability to compete in the mobile SoC space will be determined by how well it can re-engineer its CPU process technology to meet the diverse needs of a complex mobile SoC.

If Intel can successfully design and manufacture 14nm and 10nm processes that span the full range of the performance-power spectrum required for mobile SoC applications, it will have an edge over the competition. But for Intel to compete effectively in the mobile SoC space, it will also need to offer a cost advantage. Average Selling Price (ASP) in the SoC space is a fraction of that in the CPU space. While fabless Apple can drive the best possible deal from competing foundries, IDM Intel needs to ensure that its volumes and ASPs are high enough to recoup its own development and manufacturing CapEx.

Intel may try to enhance its SoC functionality offering by way of more acquisitions like Infineon Wireless. But post-merger, porting Infineon’s foundry standard design rules to Intel’s proprietary design rules will be non-trivial (In 2015, nearly 5 years after the acquisition, Intel is yet to port Infineon’s modem chips to their own fabs and continues to make them at TSMC!). By contrast, the Qualcomm acquisition of Atheros likely proved to be more seamless since the IP was from the open ecosystem and already foundry compatible.

Battlefront #2 — CPU (Core Architecture)

The main battle on the CPU front is between Intel/x86 and ARM architecture. While Intel historically has had the upper hand in performance, ARM-designed cores have delivered superior performance/watt.

To effectively compete against ARM, Intel will need to design its low-power Atom cores in the most power-efficient way possible. To design a true low-power core, Intel may need to decouple the Atom from legacy x86-based architecture and develop a new ground-up design that delivers highly competitive performance/watt.

Intel will also have to be in aggressive catch-up mode as it tries to reverse the momentum of an already large, established and robust ARM software ecosystem. In the initial years of the PC era, as x86 became the predominant CPU architecture, an entire ecosystem of application software was spawned that was designed to run solely on x86. This effectively precluded or seriously hindered competing architectures like PowerPC from ever gaining a foothold in the marketplace. Analogously, in the present day, ARM architecture is significantly further along in achieving critical mass in the mobile SoC space. The prevalence of ARM in a range of post-PC devices from smartphones and tablets (90% market share) to televisions and cars has placed ARM in a commanding position to inhibit the newer Intel Atom architecture from achieving traction. Practically speaking, for Intel to gain a meaningful share in the mobile market, it now has to ensure compatibility with the ARM software ecosystem. This again, will force Intel to compete on price which will limit how much revenue it can eventually generate. This is a dynamic that Intel never had to face in the PC segment.

Battlefront #3 — Silicon (Foundry Technology)

Intel’s ability to make the best performing transistor at the highest possible yields and volumes is unparalleled. This capability served it immensely well in the closed ecosystem when Intel was essentially competing against itself in the quest to make a smaller and faster transistor. In the closed ecosystem, performance trumped power; and design flexibility and high ASPs ensured that development cost was not a significant limiter.

In the open ecosystem, however, the ability to integrate disparate functional accelerators in the most power-efficient and cost-effective manner is paramount. As an example, TSMC is able to deliver the highly successful and functional A9 processor for Apple using a state-of-the-art 16nm transistor process and integrate a variety of complex IP blocks while keeping the ASP under $20. TSMC’s minimum metal pitch at the 16nm node is larger (i.e. less dense) than that of Intel at the more advanced 14nm node, yet the A9 SoC can offer better power efficiency than a comparable 14nm CPU at an acceptable performance point and much lower price point and a much smaller form-factor.

In the post-PC era, mobile and IoT computing will have a larger influence on the semiconductor landscape. The success metrics in the new landscape are not just higher transistor performance but higher system functionality, lower system cost and lower power.

Based on the above discussion and judgment, the following trends are likely to define the semiconductor industry over the next decade.

  1. Shrinking pool of advanced semiconductor fabs: The economics of Moore’s Law and the advent of mobile computing have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of advanced semiconductor manufacturing sources. Just 3 major entitities (Intel, Samsung, TSMC) now offer unique 16nm or advanced technology. (Globalfoundries is effectively just a manufacturing partner for Samsung). A wildcard here is SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, Shanghai). Even though it is a relative newcomer, SMIC is extremely driven and has the full backing of the Chinese government which has made advanced semiconductor manufacturing a national priority. SMICs entry at 14nm (by 2020) may change the foundry landscape by dramatically altering silicon wafer price-points.
  2. Making things smaller doesn't help much anymore: The 28nm node will be the longest running planar transistor technology. In a departure from prior technologies, and in response to plateauing transistor cost, the leading foundry (TSMC) has developed over 5 flavors of the technology for all applications ranging from high performance 28HPM (FPGA, GPU, mobile SoC) to ultra-low power 28ULP (IoT edge computing). As the mobile computing era matures and the IoT computing era emerges, majority of the applications will be served by 28nm or older technology. As technology development lifecycles get longer and product lifecycles get shorter, foundries will try to extract all the goodness in an existing transistor technology before moving to the next one.
  3. Even fewer applications for advanced technologies: Only a minority of applications (e.g. high performance computing, AI/AR, machine learning, computer vision) will migrate to using sub-10nm and lower technology nodes. And these advanced nodes will also be long lived with multiple variants serving disparate power/performance/cost points.
  4. Intel CPU leadership: Intel will continue to dominate the single thread/high performance CPU/server segment, albeit with increasing competition from the ARM ecosystem. Intel’s acquisition of Altera is a defensive move aimed at creating a moat around its server leadership. However, the next five years will likely see the emergence of competitive ARM based servers. Using an open ecosystem with customizable IP will enable significant cost and power reduction for these new entrants.
  5. Lego block on-chip integration: In the power and cost competitive IoT era, on-chip integration of hardware accelerators (modem, CPU, graphics, etc) will continue to be extremely efficient. Compared to centralized CPU/GPU cores, SoCs will be far more effective, especially in the smartphone, tablet and convertible form-factors. As silicon scaling plateaus, packing as many disparate functional blocks as possible on a chip within a given transistor budget at the lowest integrated system cost and power will win. Companies will try to expand their footprint by capturing more real estate on the chip, either through consolidation or on their own.
  6. Ascendance of the SoC: Intel’s 14nm CPU (Skylake, 2015) and Apple/TSMC’s 16nm SoC (Apple A9, 2015) are two marquee technologies/products that will provide a barometer on the semiconductor landscape. Several benchmarking results indicate that the A9 is perhaps the most efficient mobile SoC with unparalleled performance/power metrics. This match-up will have remarkable implications — not only will it validate the rise of Apple as the dominant SoC design team, it will also suggest a vulnerability in Intel’s process technology leadership. It suggests that TSMC could go toe-to-toe with Intel on radical and highly complex transistor architectures (16/14nm tri-gate), while also supporting best-in-class SoC technology which is the enabling platform for mobile and IoT computing. Intel will need to dramatically improve its SoC offering in the years to come in order to be competitive in the SoC/IoT space.
  7. Slowing cadence of Moore’s Law: Two technologies that have the potential to significantly influence the economics of Moore’s Law and disrupt the industry cost model are (a) 450mm wafer size and (b) EUV lithography. However, a glut of fully depreciated 300mm fab infrastructure and decades long slow progress in the EUV tooling roadmap will make it a difficult value proposition at least in the foreseeable future. Conventional Moore’s Law scaling is likely to give way to more orthogonal scaling approaches (More-than-Moore) including 3D chip stacking and system/package level integration of heterogeneous chips.
End Effector Design

Robotic System Integration

Summary:

Cabot Microelectronics used two different FactoryFix Experts for Robot System Integration to retrofit an existing Fanuc Robot Palletizing System that had been sitting unused in their facility due to an unsuccessful installation by the original Robot Integrator. Cabot found two qualified companies to do the work on-site at their facility in Aurora, IL by posting the project on www.factoryfix.com.

FactoryFix Experts:

Compass Automation & Elite Automation

Customer Benefits:

Full System Retrofit — went from an unsuccessful installation to fully operational automated system.

Automated Production — Elite Automation programmed the system to run unattended for 3 shifts.

Added Functionality —Elite Automation also modified the system to run an additional part number.

Technologies:

Refurbished Fanuc R-2000 robot with IR vision system

Fanuc ArcMate robot with custom ultra-sonic knife tool

ATI Tool Changer System

Custom designed Piab vacuum gripper End-of-Arm Tooling

Solution:

Compass Automation, Inc worked with Cabot Microelectronics to redesign a 2 robot system to de-palletize large bags of silica powder, cut-open the bags using an automated ultra-sonic knife, and dump the powder into a large hopper. The system had been sitting idle on the customer’s floor for over a year due to a poor execution by the initial Robot Integrator. Cabot used FactoryFix to find local automation companies that had the expertise to retrofit the system and get them back on track. After posting their first project under the End of Arm Tooling Design category, they were connected with Compass who quoted and eventually won the job. Compass designed and built a complicated vacuum gripper that accommodated two different product sizes. The gripper also had to be designed with automated flappers to mimic a human shaking the bag over the hopper to make sure all of the powdered silica got out of the bag. The second robot tool that Compass was hired to design was a custom ultra-sonic knife tool that was mounted on the refurbished Fanuc Arc-Mate 100 robot. This tool was designed for ArcMate robot to cut slits into the silica bag while the R-2000 robot was holding it with the vacuum gripper.

Jacek from Elite Automation programming the R-2000 robot.

Once the two EOAT’s were built and mounted to the robots, Cabot Microelectronics needed to find another local supplier to come in and program the system (Compass had a scheduling conflict). They posted the project request on FactoryFix and were connected with Elite Automation, an automation company based out of nearby Carol Stream. Although it was a complex system, Elite Automation wrote the program and successfully ran-off the system within two weeks. Elite has since been hired by Cabot Microelectronics several more times for program modifications and upgrades.

Project Video:

Injection Molding Cost

You Can Find a EOAT in Bellaire here:

 



Check the Weather in Bellaire, Ohio

Berlin Robotic Arm

How to Find a Plastic Injection Molding in Berlin ?

Whether the fabricator’s store is large or small, the Ironworker is the backbone. The Ironworker isn’t a single machine; it is five machines united into an engineering wonder. It has much more versatility than most people would imagine. The five working sections that are involved in the make-up of this machine are a punch, a section shear, a bar shear, a plate shear, and a coper-notcher.

A number of the cheaper ironworkers are constructed to employ a fulcrum where the ram shakes back and forth, constructing the punch go into the die at a small angle. This normally leads to the erosion of the punch and die on the front rims. The higher quality machines integrate a ram which moves in a direct vertical line and employs modifiable gibs and guides to assure a constant traveling path.

End Effector Design

When you look for a End of Arm Tooling (EOAT)  that develop a Plastic Injection Molding in Berlin, looks for experience and not only pricing.

That gives more life to the tooling, and allows the punch to penetrate the succumb right in the middle in order to capitalize on the machine’s total tonnage.

When looking for a design house that designs a Plastic Injection Molding in Berlin  don’t look just in Ohio , other States also have great providers.

End Of Arm Tooling Parts

How I Designed this End-Of-Arm Tool for a Fanuc Robot System

?

How to cure diabetes without medicine is relatively easy if you are vigilant about the management of your diabetes. It is important to make sure that you do not take it upon yourself to give up your medication without the consultation of your doctor first. You will have to work closely with your doctor to make sure that you do not cause yourself more harm.

How to cure diabetes without medicine can be achieved with a healthy well balanced diet and regular daily exercise. This will take some time to implement, but it will definitely be worth it once it is in place. The most valuable tool you can arm yourself with is a food and exercise diary, this will allow you to work out which foods and exercises do not work for you and by knowing this information you can avoid them altogether and be well on your way to curing your diabetes without medicine.

The best way to do all this is to have your self a diabetes diet plan, make a standard diet plan for one week, get a different diet plan for a few weeks. Then implement the week 1 plan, then week 2, and then week 3. Once you have reached the end of week 3 for example, go back to week one and take out one food item to see if it makes a difference to your blood sugar readings, this will be how you find out what works for you and what doesn't.

By implementing this diabetes diet plan you will be able to cure diabetes without medicine so that you can achieve optimum health.

Eoat Gripper

Intel dominated and defined the semiconductor landscape during the PC era on two complementary fronts — silicon process technology and computing architecture (x86). Through its partnership with Microsoft, Intel enjoyed a near complete monopoly over the computing landscape during the PC era. That dominance began to erode with the emergence of two Segment Zero markets (Link) for Intel — embedded computing and mobile computing. The company that under the leadership of Andy Grove had successfully identified and vanquished at least two prior disruptive threats (Japanese memory makers in the 1980s and low cost PCs in the early 1990s) failed to successfully prepare for the next disruption — mobile computing and the ecosystem pioneered by ARM, the leader in low-cost/low-power architecture. While Intel pioneered the era of the standalone CPU with a vertically integrated business model, ARM enabled a massive lateral design/foundry ecosystem and pioneered the era of the mobile SoC (system-on-a-chip).

CPU vs. SoC

In the CPU space, chip functionality is largely determined by the computing core (e.g. Pentium, Athlon) and transistor performance is the critical metric. In the SoC space, the core is just one among a variety of IP blocks that are used to independently deliver functionality. Intel’s foray into SoC technology started in the early 2000s and was largely a response to the success of the foundry ecosystem. However, Intel’s SoC process technology has typically been implemented 1–2 years behind its mainstream CPU technology, which historically has focused on transistor scaling and performance. The foundries within the ecosystem instead focused on integrating disparate functional IP blocks on a chip while also aggressively scaling interconnect density.

The semiconductor industry today is increasingly driven by low-power consumer electronics (primarily smartphones) and SoC shipments now dominate total silicon volume. The sheer volume of desktop class computing chips like Apple A9 SoCs shipped to date has in turn dramatically improved the competitiveness of the foundry ecosystem (led by TSMC) compared to Intel. Until a few years ago, Intel’s process technology lead was unquestioned. That lead is now greatly diminished as the foundry ecosystem is on track to ship more 64 bit SoC chips than Intel by the end of this year.

The ascendance of ARM has not only displaced Intel’s leadership on the architecture front (x86) but indirectly, also on the process technology front by enabling the foundry ecosystem to ship incredibly large volumes of leading edge silicon and dramatically speeding up the manufacturing yield learning curve. Intel was late in recognizing the importance of the SoC and now finds itself playing catch-up to a strong ecosystem led by ARM on the architecture front and TSMC on the silicon process technology front.

Compounding this trend further is the reality that after 50 years of delivering consistent gains in power, performance and cost; transistor scaling is finally entering an era of diminishing returns where further shrinking the device is not only costly, but provides incremental gains in performance and power.

Meanwhile, the ARM ecosystem is also steadily making inroads into the high-end space traditionally dominated by Intel. Several new tablet and laptop computers (e.g. Google Pixel C) use SoC chips designed by fabless companies instead of CPU solutions from Intel. Over time, SoCs became much more powerful and competitive and now pose a meaningful threat to the standalone CPU. The predominance of the Intel-Microsoft partnership based on x86 architecture is waning and a huge swath of the mobile computing space is now supported by low cost Chinese design houses like MediaTek, AllWinner, RockChip and Spreadtrum that use ARM architecture and foundries like TSMC, SMIC or UMC.

The emergence of the SoC was thus a strategic inflection point for both Intel and the ARM ecosystem alike. While the silicon landscape during the PC era was defined by Intel and the CPU, it is fair to say that the silicon landscape during the mobile era continues to be defined by the SoC and the foundry ecosystem led by ARM and TSMC. In many ways, Intel’s ability to compete in the SoC space will determine the direction of the chip wars in the next wave of computing (IoT).

Transistor Technology

The process technology underlying CPUs and SoCs is similar, however the design points for each can be vastly different. For example, a CPU design requires fewer transistor variants spanning a limited range of leakage and speed. On the other hand, SoC designs require many more transistor variants spanning a much wider range of leakage and speed. SoC technology also needs to support higher supply voltages for IO devices (e.g. 1.8V, 3.3V) in addition to the nominal supply voltage for core devices (e.g. 0.9V) These differences, though subtle, require very different mindsets in transistor design and process architecture.

Intel’s focus on transistor performance can be traced back to the height of the PC wars when the benchmark was clock speed. While Intel focused on transistor performance, the foundries adapted Intel’s transistor innovations for their own SoC integration needs. In addition, they aggressively pursued metal density scaling and cost reduction. While Intel pursued a limited vertical functional integration, the foundries developed a lateral ecosystem and designed transistors for a variety of vendors that independently optimized functionality for each IP block (CPU, GPU, radio, modem, GPS, IO, SERDES, etc.).

This vast ecosystem of existing design IP is now a significant influence on the adoption of the next transistor architecture. Arguably, the foundries are today better positioned for the SoC era. By the end of 2015, TSMC will have shipped well over 100 million units of Apple’s A9 SoC. These processors are made in 16nm technology and will set new benchmarks for cost, power and connectivity features. The Apple A9 processor is possibly the most highly integrated SoC running on the most advanced silicon process technology (at TSMC and also Samsung). Intel’s advantage at the transistor level thus allowed it to win the CPU space, but the ecosystem has the advantage at the system level and is poised to win the SoC space.

In the mobile and IoT era, packing as many features on a chip as possible at the lowest integrated system cost and power will win. The transistor technology that is most compatible with all the IP needs of a complex SoC at the lowest cost will thus have the upper hand.

The Post-PC Era: Intel in an Open Ecosystem

The slowdown in the pace of Moore’s Law, the emerging importance of the SoC and the rapid growth of the mobile market all tend to favor an open, plug-and-play foundry and design ecosystem. One could expect that the ecosystem developing around ARM will continue to nip at Intel’s core markets as the development of ARM-based processors for laptops and servers accelerates. This emerging threat to Intel and Intel’s response to it will define the industry over the coming decade.

The operating system (OS) war between Microsoft and Apple in the 1980s came to define the PC and software industries. Microsoft’s open ecosystem model won as Windows became the de-facto OS for machines made by all kinds of PC makers. While Microsoft promoted an open ecosystem in the larger PC industry, ironically it spawned a closed ecosystem within the semiconductor industry. The Wintel alliance ensured that Windows only ran on x86 architecture which was pioneered and owned by Intel. The closed ecosystem hugely benefited Intel as it went on almost unchallenged to win the desktop, laptop and server space (AMD also used x86 yet could never match Intel’s scale or manufacturing expertise). A hallmark of the post-PC era is the emergence of an open ecosystem within the semiconductor industry.

Unlike the Windows/x86 dominance of the past, the post-PC era is being defined by competing OS options (iOS, Android or Windows) and competing processor architectures (x86 or ARM). Today, the momentum is in favor of ARM-based operating systems as the vast majority of mobile devices being shipped today run iOS or Android (ARM architecture).

The chip wars will be fought in this fragmented and open ecosystem on three fronts — SoC (system integration), CPU (core architecture) and silicon (foundry technology). While performance and power will continue to be important benchmarks, the open ecosystem supporting a worldwide consumer market will make cost a key success metric on each battlefront.

Battlefront #1 — SoC (System Integration)

In the mobile SoC space, the battle for processor architecture will be between Intel on the one hand and incumbents like Qualcomm, Samsung and Apple on the other. In the mobile, power constrained space, it is more efficient to integrate a variety of hardware accelerators on a single chip to deliver custom functionality as opposed to implementing a general purpose core serving most functions. Low power cores are supplemented with elements as disparate as an on-chip radio, global positioning system (GPS), modem, image and audio/video processor, universal serial bus (USB) connectivity and a graphics processing unit (GPU). An open ecosystem is far more cost-effective for such modular, plug-and-play system-level integration.

A typical CPU design (Intel Core-M) dominated by core/graphics compared to a highly integrated SoC (NVIDIA Tegra 2). The integrated SoC design has obvious advantages in mobile formfactors.

Historically, Intel, being an integrated device manufacturer (IDM) has independently designed most of the functional IP blocks, while ensuring that each uses Intel transistor technology and process design rules. Intel’s process technology leadership has benefited it enormously in the CPU space giving its designers access to best-in-class transistor performance. However, Intel’s ability to compete in the mobile SoC space will be determined by how well it can re-engineer its CPU process technology to meet the diverse needs of a complex mobile SoC.

If Intel can successfully design and manufacture 14nm and 10nm processes that span the full range of the performance-power spectrum required for mobile SoC applications, it will have an edge over the competition. But for Intel to compete effectively in the mobile SoC space, it will also need to offer a cost advantage. Average Selling Price (ASP) in the SoC space is a fraction of that in the CPU space. While fabless Apple can drive the best possible deal from competing foundries, IDM Intel needs to ensure that its volumes and ASPs are high enough to recoup its own development and manufacturing CapEx.

Intel may try to enhance its SoC functionality offering by way of more acquisitions like Infineon Wireless. But post-merger, porting Infineon’s foundry standard design rules to Intel’s proprietary design rules will be non-trivial (In 2015, nearly 5 years after the acquisition, Intel is yet to port Infineon’s modem chips to their own fabs and continues to make them at TSMC!). By contrast, the Qualcomm acquisition of Atheros likely proved to be more seamless since the IP was from the open ecosystem and already foundry compatible.

Battlefront #2 — CPU (Core Architecture)

The main battle on the CPU front is between Intel/x86 and ARM architecture. While Intel historically has had the upper hand in performance, ARM-designed cores have delivered superior performance/watt.

To effectively compete against ARM, Intel will need to design its low-power Atom cores in the most power-efficient way possible. To design a true low-power core, Intel may need to decouple the Atom from legacy x86-based architecture and develop a new ground-up design that delivers highly competitive performance/watt.

Intel will also have to be in aggressive catch-up mode as it tries to reverse the momentum of an already large, established and robust ARM software ecosystem. In the initial years of the PC era, as x86 became the predominant CPU architecture, an entire ecosystem of application software was spawned that was designed to run solely on x86. This effectively precluded or seriously hindered competing architectures like PowerPC from ever gaining a foothold in the marketplace. Analogously, in the present day, ARM architecture is significantly further along in achieving critical mass in the mobile SoC space. The prevalence of ARM in a range of post-PC devices from smartphones and tablets (90% market share) to televisions and cars has placed ARM in a commanding position to inhibit the newer Intel Atom architecture from achieving traction. Practically speaking, for Intel to gain a meaningful share in the mobile market, it now has to ensure compatibility with the ARM software ecosystem. This again, will force Intel to compete on price which will limit how much revenue it can eventually generate. This is a dynamic that Intel never had to face in the PC segment.

Battlefront #3 — Silicon (Foundry Technology)

Intel’s ability to make the best performing transistor at the highest possible yields and volumes is unparalleled. This capability served it immensely well in the closed ecosystem when Intel was essentially competing against itself in the quest to make a smaller and faster transistor. In the closed ecosystem, performance trumped power; and design flexibility and high ASPs ensured that development cost was not a significant limiter.

In the open ecosystem, however, the ability to integrate disparate functional accelerators in the most power-efficient and cost-effective manner is paramount. As an example, TSMC is able to deliver the highly successful and functional A9 processor for Apple using a state-of-the-art 16nm transistor process and integrate a variety of complex IP blocks while keeping the ASP under $20. TSMC’s minimum metal pitch at the 16nm node is larger (i.e. less dense) than that of Intel at the more advanced 14nm node, yet the A9 SoC can offer better power efficiency than a comparable 14nm CPU at an acceptable performance point and much lower price point and a much smaller form-factor.

In the post-PC era, mobile and IoT computing will have a larger influence on the semiconductor landscape. The success metrics in the new landscape are not just higher transistor performance but higher system functionality, lower system cost and lower power.

Based on the above discussion and judgment, the following trends are likely to define the semiconductor industry over the next decade.

  1. Shrinking pool of advanced semiconductor fabs: The economics of Moore’s Law and the advent of mobile computing have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of advanced semiconductor manufacturing sources. Just 3 major entitities (Intel, Samsung, TSMC) now offer unique 16nm or advanced technology. (Globalfoundries is effectively just a manufacturing partner for Samsung). A wildcard here is SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, Shanghai). Even though it is a relative newcomer, SMIC is extremely driven and has the full backing of the Chinese government which has made advanced semiconductor manufacturing a national priority. SMICs entry at 14nm (by 2020) may change the foundry landscape by dramatically altering silicon wafer price-points.
  2. Making things smaller doesn't help much anymore: The 28nm node will be the longest running planar transistor technology. In a departure from prior technologies, and in response to plateauing transistor cost, the leading foundry (TSMC) has developed over 5 flavors of the technology for all applications ranging from high performance 28HPM (FPGA, GPU, mobile SoC) to ultra-low power 28ULP (IoT edge computing). As the mobile computing era matures and the IoT computing era emerges, majority of the applications will be served by 28nm or older technology. As technology development lifecycles get longer and product lifecycles get shorter, foundries will try to extract all the goodness in an existing transistor technology before moving to the next one.
  3. Even fewer applications for advanced technologies: Only a minority of applications (e.g. high performance computing, AI/AR, machine learning, computer vision) will migrate to using sub-10nm and lower technology nodes. And these advanced nodes will also be long lived with multiple variants serving disparate power/performance/cost points.
  4. Intel CPU leadership: Intel will continue to dominate the single thread/high performance CPU/server segment, albeit with increasing competition from the ARM ecosystem. Intel’s acquisition of Altera is a defensive move aimed at creating a moat around its server leadership. However, the next five years will likely see the emergence of competitive ARM based servers. Using an open ecosystem with customizable IP will enable significant cost and power reduction for these new entrants.
  5. Lego block on-chip integration: In the power and cost competitive IoT era, on-chip integration of hardware accelerators (modem, CPU, graphics, etc) will continue to be extremely efficient. Compared to centralized CPU/GPU cores, SoCs will be far more effective, especially in the smartphone, tablet and convertible form-factors. As silicon scaling plateaus, packing as many disparate functional blocks as possible on a chip within a given transistor budget at the lowest integrated system cost and power will win. Companies will try to expand their footprint by capturing more real estate on the chip, either through consolidation or on their own.
  6. Ascendance of the SoC: Intel’s 14nm CPU (Skylake, 2015) and Apple/TSMC’s 16nm SoC (Apple A9, 2015) are two marquee technologies/products that will provide a barometer on the semiconductor landscape. Several benchmarking results indicate that the A9 is perhaps the most efficient mobile SoC with unparalleled performance/power metrics. This match-up will have remarkable implications — not only will it validate the rise of Apple as the dominant SoC design team, it will also suggest a vulnerability in Intel’s process technology leadership. It suggests that TSMC could go toe-to-toe with Intel on radical and highly complex transistor architectures (16/14nm tri-gate), while also supporting best-in-class SoC technology which is the enabling platform for mobile and IoT computing. Intel will need to dramatically improve its SoC offering in the years to come in order to be competitive in the SoC/IoT space.
  7. Slowing cadence of Moore’s Law: Two technologies that have the potential to significantly influence the economics of Moore’s Law and disrupt the industry cost model are (a) 450mm wafer size and (b) EUV lithography. However, a glut of fully depreciated 300mm fab infrastructure and decades long slow progress in the EUV tooling roadmap will make it a difficult value proposition at least in the foreseeable future. Conventional Moore’s Law scaling is likely to give way to more orthogonal scaling approaches (More-than-Moore) including 3D chip stacking and system/package level integration of heterogeneous chips.
Injection Molding Press

You Can Find a EOAT in Berlin here:

 



Check the Weather in Berlin, Ohio

Bloomdale Vacuum Cup

How to Find a Industrial Robots in Bloomdale ?

Whether the fabricator’s shop is large or small, the Ironworker is the backbone. The Ironworker isn’t a single machine; it is five machines united into an engineering wonder. It has much more versatility than most people would imagine. The five working sections that are involved in the make-up of this machine are a punch, a section shear, a bar shear, a plate shear, and a coper-notcher.

A number of the cheaper ironworkers are constructed to employ a fulcrum where the ram shakes back and forth, building the punch go into the die at a small angle. This normally leads to the eroding of the punch and succumb on the front rims. The higher quality machines incorporate a ram which moves in a direct vertical line and employs modifiable gibs and guidebooks to assure a constant traveling path.

Injection Molding Cost

When you look for a End of Arm Tooling (EOAT)  that develop a Industrial Robots in Bloomdale, looks for experience and not only pricing.

That gives more life to the tooling, and allows the punch to penetrate the succumb right in the middle in order to capitalize on the machine’s total tonnage.

When looking for a design house that designs a Industrial Robots in Bloomdale  don’t look just in Ohio , other States also have great providers.

Mouldable Plastic

FactoryFix Case Study, Cabot Microelectronics

?

Blacksmith Power Hammers or Trip Hammers

If you have ever worked with a power hammer you see the blacksmithing world through different eyes. Power hammers really fall into 3 basic categories, Hydraulic Presses, Mechanical Hammers, and Air Hammers. They are all designed to increase the amount of force that you can apply to the steel. This means you can do more work in a given amount of time and you can work bigger bar. Suddenly this opens a whole new creative reality with the steel.

Hydraulic Presses

I don't use one in my shop but I have used one years back in another smiths shop. Hydraulics have tons of power (literally) and can force the metal into many different shapes very effectively. They are useful for extreme controlled force applications such as forcing steel into preshaped dies, or cutting at specific lengths or angles etc.

This is not an impact machine such as mechanical hammers or air hammers, and is not fast. It can be used for drawing out steel but this is tedious. Although it would save time from drawing out by hand and allow you to work bigger bar I would go crazy with the slow process.

Essentially the machine is a hydraulic ram mounted on a frame with an electric pump. You use a foot control to squish the metal. Step with the foot apply more force. Release the foot the dies back off then you can move the bar and apply the force again in a different spot.

There are a couple of positive aspects of a hydraulic press. They have a small footprint, and require no special foundation. Prices are manageable for this type of tool. About $2000.00 in my area. There is no impact noise or vibration with this type of machine. The whine of the hydraulic pump can be loud but it doesn't have the same annoyance factor for neighbors as the impact from a hammer. Presses are rated by the number of tons pressure that the ram can produce. 20 ton, 40 ton and 60 ton are common sizes.

Most smaller blacksmithing shops use 50 lb to 150 lb size. There are two subclasses of air hammers that you should be aware of. The self contained and the air compressor version. The self contained uses two air cylinders. One is the compressor cylinder and is driven by a motor. This cylinder provides air to the hammer head cylinder. So every up stroke of the drive cylinder forces the hammer head cylinder down and every down stroke forces the hammer head cylinder up. Valving causes the air to be either exhausted or sent in varying amounts to the hammer head cylinder. This provides the control on the stroke and  force applied to the steel. This cyclic timing is governed by the speed of the electric motor.

The air compressor reliant air hammer feeds off a constant line pressure and has a feed back circuit built into the design. The hammer head travels up and trips a switch that tells it to go back down. Once it reaches a certain travel point another switch tells it to go back up. The amount of the exhaust dictates both the speed and the force applied to the steel.

Although air hammers appear to be a bit more complicated than a mechanical hammer there are actually less moving parts and less to wear out. I find them to be more versatile. You can adjust your stroke and force just by moderating your foot peddle. With a mechanical hammer you have to make a mechanical adjustment to change your stroke height. Your force is controlled by the speed of the impact or the speed of rotation.

End Effector Design

AWS recently announced its new per second billing for its EC2 instances and EBS volumes. This is perfect timing to talk about cost optimization. After a short intro we will guide you through some real world examples and best practices that we use at Teads to optimize our infrastructure costs.

The cloud computing opportunity and its traps

One of the advantages of cloud computing is its ability to fit the infrastructure to your needs, you only pay for what you really use. That is how most hyper growth startups have managed their incredible ascents.

Most companies migrating to the cloud embrace the “lift & shift” strategy, replicating what was once on premises.

You most likely won’t save a penny with this first step.

Main reasons being:

  • Your applications do not support elasticity yet,
  • Your applications rely on complex backend you need to migrate with (RabbitMQ, Cassandra, Galera clusters, etc.),
  • Your code relies on being executed in a known network environment and most likely uses NFS as distributed storage mechanism.

Once in the cloud, you need to “cloudify” your infrastructure.

Then, and only then, will you have access to virtually infinite computing power and storage.

Watch out, this apparent freedom can lead to very serious drifts: over provisioning, under optimizing your code or even forgetting to “turn off the lights” by letting that small PoC run more than necessary using that very nice r3.8xlarge instance.

Essentially, you have just replaced your need for capacity planning by a need for cost monitoring and optimization.

The dark side of cloud computing

At Teads we were “born in the cloud” and we are very happy about it.

One of our biggest pain today with our cloud providers is the complexity of their pricing.

It is designed to look very simple at the first glance (usually based on simple metrics like $/GB/month or $/hour or, more recently, $/second) but as you expand and go into a multi-region infrastructure mixing lots of products, you will have a hard time tracking the ever-growing cost of your cloud infrastructure.

For example, the cost of putting a file on S3 and serving it from there includes four different lines of billing:

  • Actual storage cost (80% of your bill)
  • Cost of the HTTP PUT request (2% of your bill)
  • Cost of the many HTTP GET requests (3% of your bill)
  • Cost of the data transfer (15% of your bill)

Our take on Cost Optimization

  • Focus on structural costs - Never block short term costs increase that would speed up the business, or enable a technical migration.
  • Everyone is responsible - Provide tooling to each team to make them autonomous on their cost optimization.

The limit of cost optimization for us is when it drives more complexity in the code and less agility in the future, for a limited ROI. 
This way of thinking also helps us to tackle cost optimisation in our day to day developments.

Overall we can extend this famous quote from Kent Beck:

“Make it work, make it right, make it fast” … and then cost efficient.

Billing Hygiene

It is of the utmost importance to keep a strict billing hygiene and know your daily spends.

In some cases, it will help you identify suspicious uptrends, like a service stuck in a loop and writing a huge volume of logs to S3 or a developer that left its test infrastructure up & running during a week-end.

You need to arm yourself with a detailed monitoring of your costs and spend time looking at it every day.

You have several options to do so, starting with AWS’s own tools:

  • Billing Dashboard, giving a high level view of your main costs (Amazon S3, Amazon EC2, etc.) and a rarely accurate forecast, at least for us. Overall, it’s not detailed enough to be of use for serious monitoring.
  • Detailed Billing Report, this feature has to be enabled in your account preferences. It sends you a daily gzipped .csv file containing one line per billable item since the beginning of the month (e.g., instance A sent X Mb of data on the Internet). 
    The detailed billing is an interesting source of data once you have added custom tags to your services so that you can group your costs by feature / application / part of your infrastructure. 
    Be aware that this file is accurate within a delay of approximately two days as it takes time for AWS to compute the files. 
    UPDATE (June ‘18) Detailed Billing is officially deprecated, use the Cost and Usage Report instead.
  • Trusted Advisor, available at the business and enterprise support level, also includes a cost section with interesting optimization insights.
Trusted Advisor cost section - Courtesy of AWS
  • Cost Explorer, an interesting tool since its update in august 2017. It can be used to quickly identify trends but it is still limited as you cannot build complete dashboards with it. It is mainly a reporting tool.
Example of a Cost Explorer report — AWS documentation

Then you have several other external options to monitor the costs of your infrastructure:

  • SaaS products like Cloudyn / Cloudhealth. These solutions are really well made and will tell you how to optimize your infrastructure. Their pricing model is based on a percentage of your annual AWS bill, not on the savings that the tools will help you make, which was a show stopper for us.
  • The open source project Ice, initially developed by Netflix for their own use. Recently, the leadership of this project was transferred to the french startup Teevity who is also offering a SaaS version for a fixed fee. This could be a great option as it also handles GCP and Azure.

Building our own monitoring solution

At Teads we decided to go DIY using the detailed billings files.

We built a small Lambda function that ingests the detailed billing file into Redshift every day. This tool helps us slice and dice our data along numerous dimensions to dive deeper into our costs. We also use it to spot suspicious usage uptrends, down to the service level.

This is an example of our daily dashboard built with chart.io, each color corresponds to a service we taggedWhen zoomed on a specific service, we can quickly figure out what is expensive

On top of that, we still use a spreadsheet to integrate the reservation upfronts in order to get a complete overview and the full daily costs.

Now that we have the data, how to optimize?

Here are the 5 pillars of our cost optimization strategy.

1 - Reserved Instances (RIs)

First things first, you need to reserve your instances. Technically speaking, RIs will only make sure that you have access to the reserved resources.

At Teads our reservation strategy is based on bi-annual reservation batches and we are also evaluating higher frequencies (3 to 4 batches per year).

The right frequency should be determined by the best compromise between flexibility (handling growth, having leaner financial streams) and the ability to manage the reservations efficiently. 
In the end, managing reservations is a time consuming task.

Reservation is mostly a financial tool, you commit to pay for resources during 1 or 3 years and get a discount over the on-demand price:

  • You have two types of reservations, standard or convertible. Convertible lets you change the instance family but comes with a smaller discount compared to standard (avg. 75% vs 54% for a convertible). They are the best option to leverage future instance families in the long run.
  • Reservations come with three different payment options: Full Upfront, Partial Upfront, and No Upfront. With partial and no upfront, you pay the remaining balance monthly over the term. We prefer partial upfront since the discount rate is really close to the full upfront one (e.g. 56% vs 55% for a convertible 3-year term with partial).
  • Don’t forget that you can reserve a lot of things and not only Amazon EC2 instances: Amazon RDS, Amazon Elasticache, Amazon Redshift, Amazon DynamoDB, etc.

2 - Optimize Amazon S3

The second source of optimization is the object management on S3. Storage is cheap and infinite, but it is not a valid reason to keep all your data there forever. Many companies do not clean their data on S3, even though several trivial mechanisms could be used:

The Object Lifecycle option enables you to set simple rules for objects in a bucket :

  • Infrequent Access Storage (IAS): for application logs, set the object storage class to Infrequent Access Storage after a few days. 
    IAS will cut the storage cost by a factor of two but comes with a higher cost for requests. 
    The main drawback of IAS is that it uses 128kb blocks to store data so if you want to store a lot of smaller objects it will end up more expensive than standard storage.
  • Glacier: Amazon Glacier is a very long term archiving service, also called cold storage. 
    Here is a nice article from Cloudability if you want to dig deeper into optimizing storage costs and compare the different options.

Also, don’t forget to set up a delete policy when you think you won’t need those files anymore.

Finally, enabling a VPC Endpoint for your Amazon S3 buckets will suppress the data transfer costs between Amazon S3 and your instances.

3 - Leverage the Spot market

Spot instances enables you to use AWS’s spare computing power at a heavily discounted price. This can be very interesting depending on your workloads.

Spot instances are bought using some sort of auction model, if your bid is above the spot market rate you will get the instance and only pay the market price. However these instances can be reclaimed if the market price exceeds your bid.

At Teads, we usually bid the on-demand price to be sure that we can get the instance. We only pay the “market” rate which gives us a rebate up to 90%.

It is worth noting that:

  • You get a 2 min termination notice before your spot is reclaimed but you need to look for it.
  • Spot Instances are easy to use for non critical batch workloads and interesting for data processing, it’s a very good match with Amazon Elastic Map Reduce.

4 - Data transfer

Back in the physical world, you were used to pay for the network link between your Data Center and the Internet.

Whatever data you sent through that link was free of charge.

In the cloud, data transfer can grow to become really expensive.

You are charged for data transfer from your services to the Internet but also in-between AWS Availability Zones.

This can quickly become an issue when using distributed systems like Kafka and Cassandra that need to be deployed in different zones to be highly available and constantly exchange over the network.

Some advice:

  • If you have instances communicating with each other, you should try to locate them in the same AZ
  • Use managed services like Amazon DynamoDB or Amazon RDS as their inter-AZ replication costs is built-in their pricing
  • If you serve more than a few hundred Terabytes per months you should discuss with your account manager
  • Use Amazon CloudFront (AWS’s CDN) as much as you can when serving static files. The data transfer out rates are cheaper from CloudFront and free between CloudFront and EC2 or S3.

5 - Unused infrastructure

With a growing infrastructure, you can rapidly forget to turn off unused and idle things:

  • Detached Elastic IPs (EIPs), they are free when attached to an EC2 instance but you have to pay for it if they are not.
  • The block stores (EBS) starting with the EC2 instances are preserved when you stop your instances. As you will rarely re-attach a root EBS volume you can delete them. Also, snapshots tend to pile up over time, you should also look into it.
  • A Load Balancer (ELB) with no traffic is easy to detect and obviously useless. Still, it will cost you ~20 $/month.
  • Instances with no network activity over the last week. In a cloud context it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Trusted Advisor can help you in detecting these unnecessary expenses.

Key takeaways

Thank you for reading. This article was inspired by the talks I made during the #2 AWS Montpellier Meetup and Devops D-Day conference.

Devops D-Day 2017 — Marseille

If you like working on big cloud infrastructures and growth challenges, feel free to contact us, we are constantly looking for great teammates.

If you want to know more about Engineering at Teads:

About Teads Engineering
100+ Innovators Reinventing Digital Advertisingmedium.com Pneumatic Gripper

You Can Find a EOAT in Bloomdale here:

 



Check the Weather in Bloomdale, Ohio

Brecksville Insert Molding

How to Find a Suction Cups in Brecksville ?

Whether the fabricator’s store is large or small, the Ironworker is the backbone. The Ironworker isn’t a single machine; it is five machines united into an engineering wonder. It has much more versatility than most people would imagine. The five working sections that are involved in the make-up of this machine are a punch, a section shear, a bar shear, a plate shear, and a coper-notcher.

A number of the cheaper ironworkers are constructed to employ a fulcrum where the ram shakes back and forth, building the punch go into the die at a small angle. This normally leads to the eroding of the punch and die on the front rims. The higher quality machines incorporate a ram which moves in a direct vertical line and employs modifiable gibs and guides to insure a constant traveling path.

Injection Molding Cost

When you look for a End of Arm Tooling (EOAT)  that develop a Suction Cups in Brecksville, looks for experience and not only pricing.

That dedicates more life to the tooling, and allows the punch to penetrate the succumb right in the middle in order to capitalize on the machine’s total tonnage.

When looking for a design house that designs a Suction Cups in Brecksville  don’t look just in Ohio , other States also have great providers.

Injection Moulding Manufacturers

Automation and Industrial Robots

?

Intel dominated and defined the semiconductor landscape during the PC era on two complementary fronts — silicon process technology and computing architecture (x86). Through its partnership with Microsoft, Intel enjoyed a near complete monopoly over the computing landscape during the PC era. That dominance began to erode with the emergence of two Segment Zero markets (Link) for Intel — embedded computing and mobile computing. The company that under the leadership of Andy Grove had successfully identified and vanquished at least two prior disruptive threats (Japanese memory makers in the 1980s and low cost PCs in the early 1990s) failed to successfully prepare for the next disruption — mobile computing and the ecosystem pioneered by ARM, the leader in low-cost/low-power architecture. While Intel pioneered the era of the standalone CPU with a vertically integrated business model, ARM enabled a massive lateral design/foundry ecosystem and pioneered the era of the mobile SoC (system-on-a-chip).

CPU vs. SoC

In the CPU space, chip functionality is largely determined by the computing core (e.g. Pentium, Athlon) and transistor performance is the critical metric. In the SoC space, the core is just one among a variety of IP blocks that are used to independently deliver functionality. Intel’s foray into SoC technology started in the early 2000s and was largely a response to the success of the foundry ecosystem. However, Intel’s SoC process technology has typically been implemented 1–2 years behind its mainstream CPU technology, which historically has focused on transistor scaling and performance. The foundries within the ecosystem instead focused on integrating disparate functional IP blocks on a chip while also aggressively scaling interconnect density.

The semiconductor industry today is increasingly driven by low-power consumer electronics (primarily smartphones) and SoC shipments now dominate total silicon volume. The sheer volume of desktop class computing chips like Apple A9 SoCs shipped to date has in turn dramatically improved the competitiveness of the foundry ecosystem (led by TSMC) compared to Intel. Until a few years ago, Intel’s process technology lead was unquestioned. That lead is now greatly diminished as the foundry ecosystem is on track to ship more 64 bit SoC chips than Intel by the end of this year.

The ascendance of ARM has not only displaced Intel’s leadership on the architecture front (x86) but indirectly, also on the process technology front by enabling the foundry ecosystem to ship incredibly large volumes of leading edge silicon and dramatically speeding up the manufacturing yield learning curve. Intel was late in recognizing the importance of the SoC and now finds itself playing catch-up to a strong ecosystem led by ARM on the architecture front and TSMC on the silicon process technology front.

Compounding this trend further is the reality that after 50 years of delivering consistent gains in power, performance and cost; transistor scaling is finally entering an era of diminishing returns where further shrinking the device is not only costly, but provides incremental gains in performance and power.

Meanwhile, the ARM ecosystem is also steadily making inroads into the high-end space traditionally dominated by Intel. Several new tablet and laptop computers (e.g. Google Pixel C) use SoC chips designed by fabless companies instead of CPU solutions from Intel. Over time, SoCs became much more powerful and competitive and now pose a meaningful threat to the standalone CPU. The predominance of the Intel-Microsoft partnership based on x86 architecture is waning and a huge swath of the mobile computing space is now supported by low cost Chinese design houses like MediaTek, AllWinner, RockChip and Spreadtrum that use ARM architecture and foundries like TSMC, SMIC or UMC.

The emergence of the SoC was thus a strategic inflection point for both Intel and the ARM ecosystem alike. While the silicon landscape during the PC era was defined by Intel and the CPU, it is fair to say that the silicon landscape during the mobile era continues to be defined by the SoC and the foundry ecosystem led by ARM and TSMC. In many ways, Intel’s ability to compete in the SoC space will determine the direction of the chip wars in the next wave of computing (IoT).

Transistor Technology

The process technology underlying CPUs and SoCs is similar, however the design points for each can be vastly different. For example, a CPU design requires fewer transistor variants spanning a limited range of leakage and speed. On the other hand, SoC designs require many more transistor variants spanning a much wider range of leakage and speed. SoC technology also needs to support higher supply voltages for IO devices (e.g. 1.8V, 3.3V) in addition to the nominal supply voltage for core devices (e.g. 0.9V) These differences, though subtle, require very different mindsets in transistor design and process architecture.

Intel’s focus on transistor performance can be traced back to the height of the PC wars when the benchmark was clock speed. While Intel focused on transistor performance, the foundries adapted Intel’s transistor innovations for their own SoC integration needs. In addition, they aggressively pursued metal density scaling and cost reduction. While Intel pursued a limited vertical functional integration, the foundries developed a lateral ecosystem and designed transistors for a variety of vendors that independently optimized functionality for each IP block (CPU, GPU, radio, modem, GPS, IO, SERDES, etc.).

This vast ecosystem of existing design IP is now a significant influence on the adoption of the next transistor architecture. Arguably, the foundries are today better positioned for the SoC era. By the end of 2015, TSMC will have shipped well over 100 million units of Apple’s A9 SoC. These processors are made in 16nm technology and will set new benchmarks for cost, power and connectivity features. The Apple A9 processor is possibly the most highly integrated SoC running on the most advanced silicon process technology (at TSMC and also Samsung). Intel’s advantage at the transistor level thus allowed it to win the CPU space, but the ecosystem has the advantage at the system level and is poised to win the SoC space.

In the mobile and IoT era, packing as many features on a chip as possible at the lowest integrated system cost and power will win. The transistor technology that is most compatible with all the IP needs of a complex SoC at the lowest cost will thus have the upper hand.

The Post-PC Era: Intel in an Open Ecosystem

The slowdown in the pace of Moore’s Law, the emerging importance of the SoC and the rapid growth of the mobile market all tend to favor an open, plug-and-play foundry and design ecosystem. One could expect that the ecosystem developing around ARM will continue to nip at Intel’s core markets as the development of ARM-based processors for laptops and servers accelerates. This emerging threat to Intel and Intel’s response to it will define the industry over the coming decade.

The operating system (OS) war between Microsoft and Apple in the 1980s came to define the PC and software industries. Microsoft’s open ecosystem model won as Windows became the de-facto OS for machines made by all kinds of PC makers. While Microsoft promoted an open ecosystem in the larger PC industry, ironically it spawned a closed ecosystem within the semiconductor industry. The Wintel alliance ensured that Windows only ran on x86 architecture which was pioneered and owned by Intel. The closed ecosystem hugely benefited Intel as it went on almost unchallenged to win the desktop, laptop and server space (AMD also used x86 yet could never match Intel’s scale or manufacturing expertise). A hallmark of the post-PC era is the emergence of an open ecosystem within the semiconductor industry.

Unlike the Windows/x86 dominance of the past, the post-PC era is being defined by competing OS options (iOS, Android or Windows) and competing processor architectures (x86 or ARM). Today, the momentum is in favor of ARM-based operating systems as the vast majority of mobile devices being shipped today run iOS or Android (ARM architecture).

The chip wars will be fought in this fragmented and open ecosystem on three fronts — SoC (system integration), CPU (core architecture) and silicon (foundry technology). While performance and power will continue to be important benchmarks, the open ecosystem supporting a worldwide consumer market will make cost a key success metric on each battlefront.

Battlefront #1 — SoC (System Integration)

In the mobile SoC space, the battle for processor architecture will be between Intel on the one hand and incumbents like Qualcomm, Samsung and Apple on the other. In the mobile, power constrained space, it is more efficient to integrate a variety of hardware accelerators on a single chip to deliver custom functionality as opposed to implementing a general purpose core serving most functions. Low power cores are supplemented with elements as disparate as an on-chip radio, global positioning system (GPS), modem, image and audio/video processor, universal serial bus (USB) connectivity and a graphics processing unit (GPU). An open ecosystem is far more cost-effective for such modular, plug-and-play system-level integration.

A typical CPU design (Intel Core-M) dominated by core/graphics compared to a highly integrated SoC (NVIDIA Tegra 2). The integrated SoC design has obvious advantages in mobile formfactors.

Historically, Intel, being an integrated device manufacturer (IDM) has independently designed most of the functional IP blocks, while ensuring that each uses Intel transistor technology and process design rules. Intel’s process technology leadership has benefited it enormously in the CPU space giving its designers access to best-in-class transistor performance. However, Intel’s ability to compete in the mobile SoC space will be determined by how well it can re-engineer its CPU process technology to meet the diverse needs of a complex mobile SoC.

If Intel can successfully design and manufacture 14nm and 10nm processes that span the full range of the performance-power spectrum required for mobile SoC applications, it will have an edge over the competition. But for Intel to compete effectively in the mobile SoC space, it will also need to offer a cost advantage. Average Selling Price (ASP) in the SoC space is a fraction of that in the CPU space. While fabless Apple can drive the best possible deal from competing foundries, IDM Intel needs to ensure that its volumes and ASPs are high enough to recoup its own development and manufacturing CapEx.

Intel may try to enhance its SoC functionality offering by way of more acquisitions like Infineon Wireless. But post-merger, porting Infineon’s foundry standard design rules to Intel’s proprietary design rules will be non-trivial (In 2015, nearly 5 years after the acquisition, Intel is yet to port Infineon’s modem chips to their own fabs and continues to make them at TSMC!). By contrast, the Qualcomm acquisition of Atheros likely proved to be more seamless since the IP was from the open ecosystem and already foundry compatible.

Battlefront #2 — CPU (Core Architecture)

The main battle on the CPU front is between Intel/x86 and ARM architecture. While Intel historically has had the upper hand in performance, ARM-designed cores have delivered superior performance/watt.

To effectively compete against ARM, Intel will need to design its low-power Atom cores in the most power-efficient way possible. To design a true low-power core, Intel may need to decouple the Atom from legacy x86-based architecture and develop a new ground-up design that delivers highly competitive performance/watt.

Intel will also have to be in aggressive catch-up mode as it tries to reverse the momentum of an already large, established and robust ARM software ecosystem. In the initial years of the PC era, as x86 became the predominant CPU architecture, an entire ecosystem of application software was spawned that was designed to run solely on x86. This effectively precluded or seriously hindered competing architectures like PowerPC from ever gaining a foothold in the marketplace. Analogously, in the present day, ARM architecture is significantly further along in achieving critical mass in the mobile SoC space. The prevalence of ARM in a range of post-PC devices from smartphones and tablets (90% market share) to televisions and cars has placed ARM in a commanding position to inhibit the newer Intel Atom architecture from achieving traction. Practically speaking, for Intel to gain a meaningful share in the mobile market, it now has to ensure compatibility with the ARM software ecosystem. This again, will force Intel to compete on price which will limit how much revenue it can eventually generate. This is a dynamic that Intel never had to face in the PC segment.

Battlefront #3 — Silicon (Foundry Technology)

Intel’s ability to make the best performing transistor at the highest possible yields and volumes is unparalleled. This capability served it immensely well in the closed ecosystem when Intel was essentially competing against itself in the quest to make a smaller and faster transistor. In the closed ecosystem, performance trumped power; and design flexibility and high ASPs ensured that development cost was not a significant limiter.

In the open ecosystem, however, the ability to integrate disparate functional accelerators in the most power-efficient and cost-effective manner is paramount. As an example, TSMC is able to deliver the highly successful and functional A9 processor for Apple using a state-of-the-art 16nm transistor process and integrate a variety of complex IP blocks while keeping the ASP under $20. TSMC’s minimum metal pitch at the 16nm node is larger (i.e. less dense) than that of Intel at the more advanced 14nm node, yet the A9 SoC can offer better power efficiency than a comparable 14nm CPU at an acceptable performance point and much lower price point and a much smaller form-factor.

In the post-PC era, mobile and IoT computing will have a larger influence on the semiconductor landscape. The success metrics in the new landscape are not just higher transistor performance but higher system functionality, lower system cost and lower power.

Based on the above discussion and judgment, the following trends are likely to define the semiconductor industry over the next decade.

  1. Shrinking pool of advanced semiconductor fabs: The economics of Moore’s Law and the advent of mobile computing have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of advanced semiconductor manufacturing sources. Just 3 major entitities (Intel, Samsung, TSMC) now offer unique 16nm or advanced technology. (Globalfoundries is effectively just a manufacturing partner for Samsung). A wildcard here is SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, Shanghai). Even though it is a relative newcomer, SMIC is extremely driven and has the full backing of the Chinese government which has made advanced semiconductor manufacturing a national priority. SMICs entry at 14nm (by 2020) may change the foundry landscape by dramatically altering silicon wafer price-points.
  2. Making things smaller doesn't help much anymore: The 28nm node will be the longest running planar transistor technology. In a departure from prior technologies, and in response to plateauing transistor cost, the leading foundry (TSMC) has developed over 5 flavors of the technology for all applications ranging from high performance 28HPM (FPGA, GPU, mobile SoC) to ultra-low power 28ULP (IoT edge computing). As the mobile computing era matures and the IoT computing era emerges, majority of the applications will be served by 28nm or older technology. As technology development lifecycles get longer and product lifecycles get shorter, foundries will try to extract all the goodness in an existing transistor technology before moving to the next one.
  3. Even fewer applications for advanced technologies: Only a minority of applications (e.g. high performance computing, AI/AR, machine learning, computer vision) will migrate to using sub-10nm and lower technology nodes. And these advanced nodes will also be long lived with multiple variants serving disparate power/performance/cost points.
  4. Intel CPU leadership: Intel will continue to dominate the single thread/high performance CPU/server segment, albeit with increasing competition from the ARM ecosystem. Intel’s acquisition of Altera is a defensive move aimed at creating a moat around its server leadership. However, the next five years will likely see the emergence of competitive ARM based servers. Using an open ecosystem with customizable IP will enable significant cost and power reduction for these new entrants.
  5. Lego block on-chip integration: In the power and cost competitive IoT era, on-chip integration of hardware accelerators (modem, CPU, graphics, etc) will continue to be extremely efficient. Compared to centralized CPU/GPU cores, SoCs will be far more effective, especially in the smartphone, tablet and convertible form-factors. As silicon scaling plateaus, packing as many disparate functional blocks as possible on a chip within a given transistor budget at the lowest integrated system cost and power will win. Companies will try to expand their footprint by capturing more real estate on the chip, either through consolidation or on their own.
  6. Ascendance of the SoC: Intel’s 14nm CPU (Skylake, 2015) and Apple/TSMC’s 16nm SoC (Apple A9, 2015) are two marquee technologies/products that will provide a barometer on the semiconductor landscape. Several benchmarking results indicate that the A9 is perhaps the most efficient mobile SoC with unparalleled performance/power metrics. This match-up will have remarkable implications — not only will it validate the rise of Apple as the dominant SoC design team, it will also suggest a vulnerability in Intel’s process technology leadership. It suggests that TSMC could go toe-to-toe with Intel on radical and highly complex transistor architectures (16/14nm tri-gate), while also supporting best-in-class SoC technology which is the enabling platform for mobile and IoT computing. Intel will need to dramatically improve its SoC offering in the years to come in order to be competitive in the SoC/IoT space.
  7. Slowing cadence of Moore’s Law: Two technologies that have the potential to significantly influence the economics of Moore’s Law and disrupt the industry cost model are (a) 450mm wafer size and (b) EUV lithography. However, a glut of fully depreciated 300mm fab infrastructure and decades long slow progress in the EUV tooling roadmap will make it a difficult value proposition at least in the foreseeable future. Conventional Moore’s Law scaling is likely to give way to more orthogonal scaling approaches (More-than-Moore) including 3D chip stacking and system/package level integration of heterogeneous chips.
End Of Arm Tooling Parts

There are many different types of ergonomic garden tools. This article will cover a few of the most common ergonomic garden tools available, and will also mention a few things to look for when shopping for the tool that's right for you.

Ergonomic Hand Garden Tools

In the smaller range of ergonomic hand tools, the most common design trait is a curved handle. I've seen this design also called a radial handle. Traditional hand gardening tools force you to strain the angle of your wrist downward as you grip and push the tool into the soil. Ergonomic garden tools have a curved handle that looks like a pistol grip. This allows you to keep your wrist straight and in-line with your forearm. You than can make a much stronger fist and put more weight and strength into the tool without straining the joints or tendons of your wrist.

Another innovative design uses a straight handle shaft, about 12 inches long, that straps securely to your forearm, just below your elbow, and then uses a perpendicular grip handle at the level of your hand that you can grasp. This is a great design for individuals that have some level of disability or suffer from arthritis, because you can make use of the strength of your entire arm, distributing the weight and force throughout, instead of on your wrist and hand. You will also significantly increase the force of work you can exert on the garden tool.

1. Strength

Both the handle and tool head should be strong. Some manufacturers use a lightweight steel shaft that is coated. Others will use a professional grade fiberglass that is both lightweight and strong. Strength and weight are key to good quality ergonomic garden tools.

2. Weight

As just mentioned, weight is an important factor. There are designs that are both durable and very strong, but also light weight. You do not want to work with a heavy tool. Repetitive movements over a period of time will bring more fatigue and increase chances of injury if you use a heavy tool.

3. Quality Construction

Buying an 89 cent, two liter bottle of off-brand soda may be a good idea, but buying inexpensive, off-brand ergonomic garden tools is usually not. Cheap metals, flimsy tool attachments, weak handles, etc., are factors you need to stay away from. Pay for high quality and life-long warranties, and you will use your tools for years.

---

By Dan Fenstemaker, Inventor of the Original INTELETOOL

Injection Moulding Manufacturers

You Can Find a EOAT in Brecksville here:

 



Check the Weather in Brecksville, Ohio

Buckeye Lake Palletizing

How to Find a Palletizing in Buckeye Lake ?

Whether the fabricator’s shop is large or small, the Ironworker is the backbone. The Ironworker isn’t a single machine; it is five machines united into an engineering wonder. It has much more versatility than most people would imagine. The five working sections that are involved in the make-up of this machine are a punch, a section shear, a bar shear, a plate shear, and a coper-notcher.

A number of the cheaper ironworkers are constructed to employ a fulcrum where the ram shakes back and forth, building the punch go into the succumb at a small angle. This normally leads to the eroding of the punch and succumb on the front rims. The higher quality machines incorporate a ram which moves in a direct vertical line and employs modifiable gibs and guidebooks to ensure a constant traveling path.

Injection Moulding Machine Price

When you look for a End of Arm Tooling (EOAT)  that develop a Palletizing in Buckeye Lake, looks for experience and not only pricing.

That dedicates more life to the tooling, and allows the punch to penetrate the die right in the middle in order to capitalize on the machine’s total tonnage.

When looking for a design house that designs a Palletizing in Buckeye Lake  don’t look just in Ohio , other States also have great providers.

Vacuum Gripper

Node and ARM

?

This job is among one of my favorites. It’s because the entire project was mine. I started by going out to their facility and seeing their inefficiencies. One cell that they were very excited to revamp was their Silica dump cell. I was able to come up with the initial concept, quote the project for materials and labor, and then do the engineering myself. I did, not only the mechanical design and detailing, but also the electrical and pneumatic schematics. I felt in charge of the whole thing- high risk, but high reward.

A HUGE 6 axis robot (ok, not that huge, I’ve used bigger) but an R2000 robot picks up these paper bags filled with Silica. The end-of-arm-tooling (EOAT) used vacuum suction to hold onto the bag.

Solidworks Rendering of EOAT

It bring it over to a hopper, where a smaller robot uses a knife to cut the bags. The larger robot then flips it’s tooling to dump the Silica into a hopper. Seems pretty simple and for the most part it was. However, the Silica is so densely packed into the bags that even when the bags were cut wide open, the Silica wouldn’t dump. To help the Silica loosen and fall, we stick needles into the bag and blow air through these probes which moves the Silica powder around. We then (for a lack of engineering terms) flap the bag to further empty the Silica. It may sound tedious, but any powder or residue left in the bag is money wasted for the company.

An SMC slide cylinder pushed the air probes through the paper bag, and the fittings attached to the other side provided air to go through to the holes in the probe.

Another part of the project was to add a tool changer to the smaller robot. It was originally just equipped with the knife, but by adding a tool changer with a “Silica break tool” the robot was able to then go into the hopper and break up large clumps of Silica helping the contents of the hopper drain. Imagine a giant potato smasher. (Which is in fact what we ended up often calling the tool.)

Potato Smasher Robot

I had a lot of fun working with my machinist and builder on this project. I did everything I could to help them succeed, but also knew they had my back on this as well. I understand that that dynamic not all that common in the work place, so I really appreciated it. The install is happening currently and now the programmer is up to bat. The EOAT has a camera and laser to locate the bag. The camera locates the XY location of the bag and the laser the Z (height) location. I can’t wait for the tooling to be fully power, programmed, and running. I really think the customer will be happy with this addition.

Custom Plastic Injection Molding

Vacuum pumps, which are the order of the day for household and industrial uses, often need repair. Dealers of vacuum pumps offer repair and maintenance at the time of purchase, as part of warranty or otherwise. Repair work is frequently undertaken by the manufacturers of particular brands, who often know the gadgets better. Otherwise, repair kits are available, with which an individual pump owner can repair the pump him- or herself.

Repair kits are available from numerous manufacturers and are an important part for users of vacuum pumps. If one volunteers to go through the "do-it-yourself" path before undertaking repairs, the pump should be sent to a detoxification center, if toxic substances were used in the pump earlier. Workspace, lots of emery paper, sealants, cleaning solvent, new oil, and facilities for disposal of the used oil are essential aspects. A manufacturer's pump repair kit can cost about $400, and some brands cost up to $900. The kit contains a bag of gaskets, shaft seals, and ""O"" rings. Other items that will be needed include a pump repair stand, hammer, cigarette paper, and most likely a puller to remove the drive pulley.

Incidentally, it was found that air consumption could be reduced by 98 percent when a robot's end-of-arm tool was equipped with particular technologies, entailing less repair and maintenance. Automotive manufacturers have found the system integration and the implementation of standard autoracking solutions to be extremely cost-effective and adaptable when working with different robot platforms.

Eoat Gripper

You Can Find a EOAT in Buckeye Lake here:

 



Check the Weather in Buckeye Lake, Ohio

Caledonia End Effector

How to Find a Molding Machine in Caledonia ?

Whether the fabricator’s shop is large or small, the Ironworker is the backbone. The Ironworker isn’t a single machine; it is five machines united into an engineering wonder. It has much more versatility than most people would imagine. The five working sections that are involved in the make-up of this machine are a punch, a section shear, a bar shear, a plate shear, and a coper-notcher.

A number of the cheaper ironworkers are constructed to employ a fulcrum where the ram shakes back and forth, constructing the punch go into the succumb at a small angle. This normally leads to the eroding of the punch and die on the front rims. The higher quality machines integrate a ram which moves in a direct vertical line and utilizes modifiable gibs and guidebooks to guarantee a constant traveling route.

Injection Moulding Manufacturers

When you look for a End of Arm Tooling (EOAT)  that develop a Molding Machine in Caledonia, looks for experience and not only pricing.

That dedicates more life to the tooling, and allows the punch to penetrate the die right in the middle in order to capitalize on the machine’s total tonnage.

When looking for a design house that designs a Molding Machine in Caledonia  don’t look just in Ohio , other States also have great providers.

Robot End Effector Gripper

Major Parts Of An Excavator And How It Works

?

There are many different types of ergonomic garden tools. This article will cover a few of the most common ergonomic garden tools available, and will also mention a few things to look for when shopping for the tool that's right for you.

Ergonomic Hand Garden Tools

In the smaller range of ergonomic hand tools, the most common design trait is a curved handle. I've seen this design also called a radial handle. Traditional hand gardening tools force you to strain the angle of your wrist downward as you grip and push the tool into the soil. Ergonomic garden tools have a curved handle that looks like a pistol grip. This allows you to keep your wrist straight and in-line with your forearm. You than can make a much stronger fist and put more weight and strength into the tool without straining the joints or tendons of your wrist.

Another innovative design uses a straight handle shaft, about 12 inches long, that straps securely to your forearm, just below your elbow, and then uses a perpendicular grip handle at the level of your hand that you can grasp. This is a great design for individuals that have some level of disability or suffer from arthritis, because you can make use of the strength of your entire arm, distributing the weight and force throughout, instead of on your wrist and hand. You will also significantly increase the force of work you can exert on the garden tool.

1. Strength

Both the handle and tool head should be strong. Some manufacturers use a lightweight steel shaft that is coated. Others will use a professional grade fiberglass that is both lightweight and strong. Strength and weight are key to good quality ergonomic garden tools.

2. Weight

As just mentioned, weight is an important factor. There are designs that are both durable and very strong, but also light weight. You do not want to work with a heavy tool. Repetitive movements over a period of time will bring more fatigue and increase chances of injury if you use a heavy tool.

3. Quality Construction

Buying an 89 cent, two liter bottle of off-brand soda may be a good idea, but buying inexpensive, off-brand ergonomic garden tools is usually not. Cheap metals, flimsy tool attachments, weak handles, etc., are factors you need to stay away from. Pay for high quality and life-long warranties, and you will use your tools for years.

---

By Dan Fenstemaker, Inventor of the Original INTELETOOL

End Effector Design

Obviously enough, one of the first things many people want to know when getting started with scrolling as a hobby is what saw to buy. Whether you are looking to purchase your first scroll saw, or you are looking to upgrade to a better one, there are many things to consider. In this article I will attempt to touch on all aspects so that you are able to make an informed decision. I will also make some recommendations based on personal experience and what I feel is the general consensus of the scroll sawyers I have discussed the matter with.

Important Considerations

Blade Changing and Blade Holders: The saw should accept standard 5" pinless blades. A lot of scrollwork simply cannot be done with a saw that requires pinned blades. While pinned blades have some advantages, they have one very big disadvantage: You can't cut any small inside detail cuts since you have to drill a very big hole to get the blade's pin through.

Also, how easy is it to change a blade? Is a tool required for this? Some scroll saw projects have hundreds of holes. This means you have to remove one end of the blade from the holder and thread it through the wood and re-mount it in the holder more times than you can count. Be sure the process is comfortable and relatively easy to do. A saw in which the arm can be raised and which holds itself in this position is most desirable as it makes this process much easier as do tool-less blade holders.

Variable speed: A great many saws offer variable speed and you should not have a problem finding this feature in any price range. Sometimes you will want to slow the blade down just to cut slower, other times you must slow it down to prevent the blade from burning the edges of the wood as you cut. Some scroll saws require belt changing to change speeds. Personally, I would highly recommend a saw an electronic speed control.

Vibration: Vibration is very distracting when cutting and must be kept to a bare minimum. Some saws inherently vibrate more by design. This feature tends to be very much dependent on the cost of the particular saw. Vibration can be reduced by mounting the saw to a stand. A sturdily mounted saw and heavier saw/stand combination will reduce vibration. Many companies offer stands purpose built for their saws.

Size Specifications: Manufacturers often list the maximum cutting thickness of their saws. Since this is always more than 2", you can ignore this as you likely will never want to cut anything thicker than that on a scroll saw.

The depth of the throat however is something you may want to consider if you think you will be cutting very large projects. A small throat will limit how big of a piece you can swing around on the table while you cut. For many this is not a very big deal since it is somewhat difficult and unpleasant to swing around a big piece of wood on a scroll saw. This limit can also be circumvented by the use of spiral blades which don't require the work to be rotated at all.

A most notable difference between the Excalibur and other saws is that the head of the saw tilts rather than the table. This is a nice advantage if you intend to do a lot of angled cutting. The one feature that I personally am leery about is that you only have a quick release for the tension at the front of the saw's upper arm and the fine adjustment is at the back of the arm. This is a relatively recent change to the saw however I have not seen any negative feedback about this setup. Theoretically, once you have set the fine adjustment, you don't have to adjust it very often and you just need the quick release when undoing/redoing the blade to feed it through your project.

These saws are manufactured by General International, which has a reputation for quality.

Other notable mentions RBI and Eclipse both offer high end saws with great performance and low vibration. You may want to check these saws out if you can afford them. Since they are out of most people's price range, I have not heard a whole lot of feedback on them. In my opinion, many of these models do however have inconveniently located controls and/or require tools for blade changes which do give me cause for concern.

Hegner offers four different models starting at about $700 and going all the way to $2400. The lowest end model "Multimax 14-E" is only single speed which I would definitely stay away from. In my opinion there are several better choices for a comparable or cheaper price. The $2400 industrial "Polymax" model requires belt changing to change the speed which is an inconvenience. Because of this issue and the high price tag, I would only consider this model for a truly industrial purpose. This leaves us with the Mutimax 18-V and 22-V models to consider.

All Hegner saws require tools for blade changes. This fact, in addition to what I would personally consider an inconvenient control layout would make me think twice about a Hegner. That being said, most people who own Hegners are very happy with the quality and usability of their saws. Since I have not personally used one, I will leave this matter for your further consideration if you can afford a saw in this price range.

Conclusion

I hope this article has provided you with enough information to allow you to make the best possible investment of your money so that you can start with or upgrade to a scroll saw that will provide you years of scrolling pleasure.

Plastic Injection Machine

You Can Find a EOAT in Caledonia here:

 



Check the Weather in Caledonia, Ohio