The news is full of success after success in commercial space. What many people don’t know is that Arizona companies are playing a key role in many of the recent successes, and setting records of their own. In “These 7 Arizona companies are quietly leading in space exploration and commercialization” I take a look at seven local organizations, large and small, who are making a difference.
Have you ever looked at the mechanical properties in an FDM material datasheet (one example shown below for Stratasys ULTEM-9085) and wondered why properties were prescribed in the non-traditional manner of XZ and ZX orientation? You may also have wondered, as I did, whatever happened to the XY orientation and why its values were not reported? The short (and unfortunate) answer is you may as well ignore the numbers in the datasheet. The longer answer follows in this blog post.
Mesostructure has a First Order Effect on FDM Properties
In the context of FDM, mesostructure is the term used to describe structural detail at the level of individual filaments. And as we show below, it is the most dominant effect in properties.
Consider this simple experiment we did a few months ago: we re-created the geometry used in the tensile test specimens reported in the datasheets and printed them on our Fortus 400mc 3D printer with ULTEM-9085. While we kept layer thickness identical throughout the experiment (0.010″), we modified the number of contours: from the default 1-contour to 10-contours, in 4 steps shown in the curves below. We used a 0.020″ value for both contour and raster widths. Each of these samples was tested mechanically on an INSTRON 8801 under tension at a displacement rate of 5mm/min.
As the figure below shows, the identical geometry had significantly different load-displacement response – as the number of contours grew, the sample grew stiffer. The calculated modulii were in the range of 180-240 kpsi. These values are lower than those reported in datasheets, but closer to published values in work done by Bagsik et al (211-303 kpsi); datasheets do not specify the meso-structure used to construct the part (number of contours, contour and raster widths etc.). Further, it is possible to modify process parameters to optimize for a certain outcome: for example, as suggested by the graph below, an all-contour design is likely to have the highest stiffness when loaded in tension.
Can we Borrow Ideas from Micromechanics Theory?
The above result is not surprising – the more interesting question is, could we have predicted it? While this is not a composite material, I wondered if I could, in my model, separate the contours that run along the boundary from the raster, and identify each as it’s own “material” with unique properties (Er and Ec). Doing this allows us to apply the Rule of Mixtures and derive an effective property. For the figure below, the effective modulus Eeff becomes:
Eeff = f.Ec + (1-f).Er
where f represents the cross-sectional area fraction of the contours.
With four data points in the curve above, I was able to use two of those data points to solve the above equation simultaneously and derive Er and Ec as follows:
Er = 182596 psi
Ec = 305776 psi
Now the question became: how predictive are these values of experimentally observed stiffness for other combinations of raster and contours? In a preliminary evaluation for two other cases, the results look promising.
So What About the Orientation in Datasheets?
Below is a typical image showing the different orientations data are typically attributed to. From our micromechanics argument above, the orientation is not the correct way to look at this data. The more pertinent question is: what is the mesostructure of the load-bearing cross-section? And the answer to the question I posed at the start, as to why the XY values are not typically reported, is apparent if you look at the image below closely and imagine the XZ and XY samples being tested under tension. You will see that from the perspective of the load-bearing cross-section, XY and XZ effectively have the similar (not the same) mesostructure at the load-bearing cross-sectional area, but with a different distribution of contours and rasters – these are NOT different orientations in the conventional X-Y-Z sense that we as users of 3D printers are familiar with.
The point of this preliminary work is not to propose a new way to model FDM structures using the Rule of Mixtures, but to emphasize the significance of the role of the mesostructure on mechanical properties. FDM mesostructure determines properties, and is not just an annoying second order effect. While property numbers from datasheets may serve as useful insights for qualitative, comparative purposes, the numbers are not extendable beyond the specific process conditions and geometry used in the testing. As such, any attempts to model FDM structure that do not account for the mesostructure are not valid, and unlikely to be accurate. To be fair to the creators of FDM datasheets, it is worth noting that the disclaimers at the bottom of these datasheets typically do inform the user that these numbers “should not be used for design specifications or quality control purposes.”
If you would like to learn more and discuss this, and other ideas in the modeling of FDM, tune in to my webinar on June 28, 2016 at 11am Eastern using the link here, or read more of my posts on this subject below. If you are reading this post after that date, drop us a line at firstname.lastname@example.org and cite this post, or connect with me directly on LinkedIn.
Thanks for reading!
Two related posts:
Every once in the while you need to get out of the office and run your co-workers off a track. For whatever reason, when members of our Sales and Support department put on some helmets and strapped themselves in to electric racing karts, they got very competitive.
The people who sell and support 3D Printers and Simulation software left their Stratasys and ANSYS brochures at home and headed to the Octane Raceway in Scottsdale, AZ for some fun and decompression. They have been working hard all year making customers happy, and they needed a way unwind. So the drove in circles.
In this team building fun was had by all. Only a few curse words were exchanged. Mario was asked to get a more subtle shirt.
The only disappointment is that the winner of the event was Oren Raz… most of us back at the office were pulling for Clinton Smith to take the trophy.
Make Functional Prototypes More Economically
With 3D Printed Injection Molds
One of the most dramatic impacts of 3D printing on design and manufacturing is with injection molding. Companies such as Seuffer, Unilever, Arad Group and Whale report significant savings in molding costs and production time by 3D printing injection molds to test designs before mass production and produce small quantities of custom parts.
Learn more by viewing this 60-minute webinar as Gil Robinson, Stratasys senior application engineer, explains the what, why and how of 3D printed injection molding.
“Why are there so many different software solutions in Additive Manufacturing and which ones do I really need?“
This was a question I was asked at lunch during the recently concluded RAPID 3D printing conference by a manager at an aerospace company. I gave her my thoughts as I was stuffing down my very average panini, but the question lingered on long after the conference was over – several weeks later, I decided to expand on my response in this blog post.
There are over 25 software solutions available (scheduling software for service technicians, etc.) and being used for different aspects of Additive Manufacturing (AM). To answer the question above, I found it best to classify these solutions into four main categories based on their purpose, and allow sub-categories to emerge as appropriate. This classification is shown in Figure 1 below – and each of the 7 sub-categories are discussed in more detail in this post.
1. Design Modeler
You need this if you intend to create or modify designs
Most designs are created in CAD software such as SOLIDWorks, CATIA and SpaceClaim (now ANSYS SpaceClaim). These have been in use long before the more recent rise in interest in AM and most companies have access to some CAD software internally already. Wikipedia has a comparison of different CAD software that is a good starting point to get a sense of the wide range of CAD solutions out there.
2. Build Preparation
You need this if you plan on using any AM technology yourself (as opposed to sending your designs outside for manufacturing)
Once you have a CAD file, you need to ensure you get the best print possible with the printer you have available. Most equipment suppliers will provide associated software with their machines that enable this. Stand-alone software packages do exist, such as the one developed by Materialise called Magics, which is a preferred solution for Stereolithography (SLA) and metal powder bed fusion in particular – some of the features of Magics are shown in the video below.
Scanning & File Transfer
3. Geometry Repair
You need this if you deal with low-quality geometries – either from scans or since you work with customers with poor CAD generation capabilities
Geomagic Design X is arguably the industry’s most comprehensive reverse engineering software which combines history-based CAD with 3D scan data processing so you can create feature-based, editable solid models compatible with your existing CAD software. If you are using ANSYS, their SpaceClaim has a powerful repair solution as well, as demonstrated in the video below.
Improving Performance Through Analysis
4. Topology Optimization
You need this if you stand to benefit from designing towards a specific objective like reducing mass, increasing stiffness etc. such as the control-arm shown in Figure 2
Of all the ways design freedom can be meaningfully exploited, topology optimization is arguably the most promising. The ability to now bring analysis up-front in the design cycle and design towards a certain objective (such as maximizing stiffness-to-weight) is compelling, particularly for high performance, material usage sensitive applications like aerospace. The most visible commercial solutions in the AM space come from Altair: with their Optistruct solution (for advanced users) and SolidThinking Inspire (which is a more user-friendly solution that uses Altair’s solver). ANSYS and Autodesk 360 Inventor also offer optimization solutions. A complete list, including freeware, can be availed of at this link.
5. Lattice Generation
You need this if you wish to take advantage of cellular/lattice structure properties for applications like such as lightweight structural panels, energy absorption devices, thermal insulation as well as medical applications like porous implants with optimum bone integration and stiffness and scaffolds for tissue engineering.
Broadly speaking, there are 3 different approaches that have been taken to lattice design software:
- Infill or Conformal Lattice Design: ANSYS SpaceClaim, Magics, Simpleware, Paramount Industries, NetFabb
- Topology Optimization Driven Lattice Design: Altair OptiStruct
- Generative Design: Autodesk Within
I will cover the differences between these approaches in detail in a future blog post. A general guideline is that the generative design approach taken by Autodesk’s Within is well suited to medical applications, while Lattice generation through topology optimization seems to be a sensible next step for those that are already performing topology optimization, as is the case with most aerospace companies pursuing AM technology. The infill/conformal approach is limiting in that it does not enable optimization of lattice structures in response to an objective function and typically involves a-priori definition of a lattice density and type which cannot then be modified locally. This is a fast evolving field – between new software and updates to existing ones, there is a new release on an almost quarterly, if not monthly basis – some recent examples are nTopology and the open source IntraLattice.
Below is a short video demo of Autodesk’s Within:
You need this if you do either topology optimization or lattice design, or need it for part performance simulation
Basic mechanical FE analysis solvers are integrated into most topology optimization and lattice generation software. For topology optimization, the digitally represented part at the end of the optimization typically has jarring surfaces that are smoothed and then need to be reanalyzed to ensure that the design changes have not shifted the part’s performance outside the required window. Beyond topology optimization & lattice design, analysis has a major role to play in simulating performance – this is also true for those seeking to compare performance between traditionally manufactured and 3D printed parts. The key challenge is the availability of valid constitutive and failure material models for AM, which needs to be sourced through independent testing, from the Senvol database or from publications.
7. Process Simulation
You need this if you would like to simulate the actual process to allow for improved part and process parameter selection, or to assess how changes in parameters influence part behavior
The real benefit for process simulation has been seen for metal AM. In this space, there are broadly speaking two approaches: simulating at the level of the part, or at the level of the powder.
- Part Level Simulation: This involves either the use of stand-alone AM-specific solutions like 3DSIM and Pan Computing (acquired by Autodesk in March 2016), or the use of commercially available FE software such as ANSYS & ABAQUS. The focus of these efforts is on intelligent support design, accounting for residual stresses and part distortion, and simulating thermal gradients in the part during the process. ANSYS recently announced a new effort with the University of Pittsburgh in this regard.
- Powder Level Simulation: R&D efforts in this space are led by Lawrence Livermore National Labs (LLNL) and the focus here is on fundamental understanding to explain observed defects and also to enable process optimization to accelerate new materials and process research
Part level simulation is of great interest for companies seeking to go down a production route with metal AM. In particular there is a need to predict part distortion and correct for it in the design – this distortion can be unacceptable in many geometries – one such example is shown in the Pan Computing (now Autodesk) video below.
A Note on Convergence
Some companies have ownership of more than one aspect of the 7 categories represented above, and are seeking to converge them either through enabling smooth handshakes or truly integrate them into one platform. In fact, Stratasys announced their GrabCAD solution at the RAPID conference, which aims to do some of this (minus the analysis aspects, and only limited to their printers at the moment – all of which are for polymers only). Companies like Autodesk, Dassault Systemes and ANSYS have many elements of the 7 software solutions listed above and while it is not clear what level of convergence they have in mind, all have recognized the potential for a solution that can address the AM design community’s needs. Autodesk for example, has in the past 2 years acquired Within (for lattice generation), netfabb (for build preparation) and Pan Computing (for simulation), to go with their existing design suite.
Conclusion: So what do I need again?
What you need depends primarily on what you are using AM technologies for. I recommend the following approach:
- Identify which of the 4 main categories apply to you
- Enumerate existing capabilities: This is a simple task of listing the software you have access to already that have capabilities described in the sub-categories
- Assess gaps in software relative to meeting requirements
- Develop an efficient road-map to get there: be aware that some software only make sense (or are available) for certain processes
In the end, one of the things AM enables is design freedom, and to quote the novelist Toni Morrison: “Freedom is not having no responsibilities; it is choosing the ones you want.” AT PADT, we work with design and analysis software as well as AM machines on a daily basis and would love to discuss choosing the appropriate software solutions for your needs in greater detail. Send us a note at email@example.com and cite this blog post, or contact me directly on LinkedIn. .
Thank you for reading!
Western Technology is a manufacturer of specialty lighting solutions that cater to a variety of highly specialized industries such as aviation, oil and gas, and maritime. Their products are used in a variety of environments making it important that the design is both versatile and functional.
In their Utah office, they have been successfully utilizing a Stratasys PolyJet 3D Printer to create polyurethane molds. By using 3D printed molds, they have been able to save both time and money over traditional manufacturing methods. You can visit bmtdesigntechnology and get to know more about uses of 3D printer.
Western Technology’s 3D Printed Toggle Mold
“Below is a pictorial of how we’ve used our new 3D printer to develop and create polyurethane parts. The parts we are producing in this mold are used to trigger a magnetic sensor inside a sealed aluminum box. Each part has a magnet and aluminum insert cast inside.” Lyal Christensen at Western Technology
The mold was printed using a Stratasys Objet 500 Connex 1 printer in a Vero Blue material (standard plastic). This is the final result after support material has been removed.
The mold is comprised of two halves that each have 3 different parts to create this Polyurethane mold. Below one side is shown in an un-assembled view.
Steel pins are press fit into the 3D printed part with ease to help with locating the magnets in the correct location. Also you can see that the part has a gloss finish to it. The parts were printed in the glossy mode which helps in minimizing the amount of support material needed to print the parts.
Inserts and Magnets are added to the mold along with a Urethane mold release agent. The Aluminum inserts are held in the right place by screws that keep the inserts suspended so that the Urethane can engulf all sides of it.
The clamped mold then has the Urethane fed into it which is poured at room temperature. Once all of the cavities are filled, the mold is left to cure at room temperature for just under one hour. Using this technique, they are able to complete 6 or 7 sets per day.
The following morning the screws and the insert bridge are removed.
The mold is pried apart using a flathead screwdriver at specific cutout locations that were printed into the mold. With a simple turn of the wrist, this mold is easily separated.
There is a little bit of flash which can easily be removed. These parts are almost ready for the customer.
The parts are cut away and are ready for de-flashing and finishing.
At Western Technology, Lyal estimates this mold would have cost $2,000+ to manufacture in just man hours. They were able to get 400+ parts out of this mold and are still using it.
If you would like to learn more about how to implement 3D Printing into your processes to save time and money, contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
New Mexico is a unique place in culture, beauty and art. It’s also very unique when it comes to the high-tech industry — both in good ways, and in bad. In “Viewpoint: 5 things that make high-tech business in NM unique (for better and worse)” I share some of my thoughts on what makes New Mexico special from a tech business standpoint. This is our first posting for the New Mexico cousin of the Phoenix Business Journal. We hope to do more.
Joining Two of PADT’s Favorite Things: Simulation and 3D Printing
Recent advances in Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing) have removed barriers to manufacturing certain geometry because of constraints in traditional manufacturing methods. Although you can make almost any shape, how do you figure out what shape to make. Using ANSYS products you can apply topological optimization to come up with a free-form shape that best meets your needs, and that can be made with Additive Manufacturing.
A few months ago we presented some background information on how to drive the design of this type of part using ANSYS tools to a few of our customers. It was a well received so we cleaned it up a bit (no guarantee there all the typos are gone) and recorded the presentation. Here it is on YouTube
Let us know what you think and if you have any questions or comments, please contact us.
Manufacturing is about to go through a major revolution, one that will have impact around the world. A new generation of automation will be changing the way things are made. In “The next revolution in manufacturing is full automation” I take a look at what it all means.
Some of you have probably already noticed, but ANSYS Mechanical licenses have some changes at version 17. First, the license that for years has been known as ANSYS Mechanical is now known as ANSYS Mechanical Enterprise. Further, ANSYS, Inc. has enabled significantly more functionality with this license at version 17 than was available in prior versions. Note that the license task in the ANSYS license files, ‘ansys’ has not changed.
|16.2 and Older (task)||17.0 (task)|
|ANSYS Mechanical (ansys)||ANSYS Mechanical Enterprise (ansys)|
The 17.0 ANSYS License Manager unlocks additional capability with this license, in addition to the existing Mechanical structural/thermal abilities. Previously, each of these tools used to be an additional cost. The change includes other “Mechanical-” licenses: e.g. Mech-EMAG, Mech CFD. The new tools enabled with ANSYS Mechanical Enterprise licenses at version 17.0 are:
|Fatigue Module||Rigid Body Dynamics||Explicit STR||Composite PrepPost (ACP)|
|SpaceClaim||DesignXplorer||ANSYS Customization Suite||AQWA|
Additionally, at version 17.1 these tools are included as well:
These changes do not apply to the lower level licenses, such as ANSYS Structural and Professional. In fact, these licenses are moving to ‘legacy’ mode at version 17. Two newer products now slot below Mechanical Enterprise. These newer products are ANSYS Mechanical Premium and ANSYS Mechanical Pro. We won’t explain those products here, but your local ANSYS provider can give you more information on these two if needed.
Getting back to the additional capabilities with Mechanical Enterprise, these become available once the ANSYS 17.0 and/or the ANSYS 17.1 license manager is installed. This assumes you have a license file that is current on TECS (enhancements and support). Also, a new license task is needed to enable Simplorer Entry.
Ignoring Simplorer Entry for the moment, once the 17.0/17.1 license manager is installed, the single Mechanical Enterprise license task (ansys) now enables several different tools. Note that:
- Multiple tool windows can be open at once
- g. ANSYS Mechanical and SpaceClaim
- Only one can be “active” at a time
- If solving, can’t edit geometry in SpaceClaim
- Capabilities are then available in older versions, where applicable, once the 17.0/17.1 license manager is installed
Here is a very brief summary of these newly available capabilities:
- Runs in the Mechanical window
- Can calculate fatigue lives for ‘simple’ products (linear static analysis)
- Stress-life for
- Constant amplitude, proportional loading
- Variable amplitude, proportional loading
- Constant amplitude, non-proportional loading
- Constant amplitude, proportional loading
- Activated by inserting the Fatigue Tool in the Mechanical Solution branch
- Postprocess fatigue lives as contour plots, etc.
- Requires fatigue life data as material properties
- Stress-life for
- Runs in the Mechanical window
- ANSYS, Inc.-developed solver using explicit time integration, energy conservation
- Use when only concerned about motion due to joints and contacts
- To determine forces and moments
- Activated via Rigid Dynamics analysis system in the Workbench window
- Runs in the Mechanical window
- Utilizes the Autodyn solver
- For highly nonlinear, short duration structural transient problems
- Drop test simulations, e.g.
- Activated via Explicit Dynamics analysis system in the Workbench window
- Tools for preparing composites models and postprocessing composites solutions
- Define composite layup
- Fiber Directions and Orientations
- Optimize composite design
- Results evaluation
- Layer stresses
- Failure criteria
- Activated via ACP (Pre) and ACP (Post) component systems in the Workbench window
- Geometry creation/preparation/repair/defeaturing tool
- Try it, learn it, love it
- A direct modeler so no history tree
- Just create/modify on the fly
- Import from CAD or create in SpaceClaim
- Can be an incredible time saver in preparing geometry for simulation
- Activated by right clicking on the Geometry cell in the Workbench project schematic
- Design of Experiments/Design Optimization/Robust Design Tool
- Allows for variation of input parameters
- Geometric dimensions including from external CAD, license permitting
- Material property values
- Mesh quantities such as shell thickness, element size specifications
- Track or optimize on results parameters
- Max or min stress
- Max or min temperature
- Max or min displacement
- Mass or volume
- Create design of experiments
- Fit response surfaces
- Perform goals driven optimizations
- Reduce mass
- Drive toward a desired temperature
- Understand sensitivities among parameters
- Perform a Design for Six Sigma study to determine probabilities
- Activated by inserting Design Exploration components into the Workbench project schematic
ANSYS Customization Suite:
- Toolkit for customization of ANSYS Workbench tools
- Includes tools for several ANSYS products
- Top level Workbench
- Based on Python and XML
- Wizards and documentation included
- Offshore tool for ship, floating platform simulation
- Uses hydrodynamic defraction for calculations
- Model up to 50 structures
- Include effects of moorings, fenders, articulated connectors
- Solve in static, frequency, and time domains
- Transfer motion and pressure info to Mechanical
- Activated via Hydrodynamic Diffraction analysis system in the Workbench window
- New, common user interface for multiphysics simulations
- Capabilities expanding with each ANSYS release (was new at 16.0)
- Uses SpaceClaim as geometry tool
- Single window
- Easy to follow workflow
- Activated from the ANSYS 17.0/17.1 Start menu
- System level simulation tool
- Simulate interactions such as between
- Structural Reduced Order Models
- Simple circuitry
- Optimize complex system performance
- Understand interactions and trade offs
- Entry level tool, limited to 30 models (Simplorer Advanced enables more)
- Activated from the ANSYS Electromagnetics tools (separate download)
- Requires an additional license task from ANSYS, Inc.
Where to get more information:
- Your local ANSYS provider
- ANSYS Help System
- ANSYS Customer Portal
Everyone needs a vacation. After over 15 years of service our Sinterstation 2500Plus needed some facility upgrades and machine updates. That work is now done and our SLS system is back up and running and better than ever, producing parts for customers who have come to count on its unique capabilities.
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) is a process that uses a high power laser to fuse a bed of powdered material together, sintering the loose powder into solid geometry. It is one of the more mature and robust 3D Printing processes available and is especially well suited for making large strong parts.
We currently run Nylon 11 and Glass Filled Nylon 12 in our machine which has a build volume of 13″ x 11″ x 16.5″ and a layer thickness of 0.004″
Few service providers have as much experience as PADT with this system, we have been using it for over 15 years. During that time we have upgraded almost every component and during the recent downtime, the system was fully calibrated and tuned for maximum precision and performance. We are also experts on how to post process the parts that come out of this machine, including painting and other coatings.
Just a Part of 3D Printing at PADT
PADT features 3D Printing services using Stratasys FDM and PolyJet technologies, making precision parts with a wide variety of materials and colors. We also offer Stereolithography (SLA) Additive Manufacturing services along with soft tooling and injection molding consulting.
If you are using a big impersonal 3D Printing “mill” or are not sure where to get your 3D Printing done, reach out to PADT. We have been doing it since 1994 and have hundreds of happy and loyal customers.
or visit our Rapid Prototyping Services pages at:
The year is almost halfway over and the pace of events that PADT is attending and holding is slackening a bit as we account for summer vacation and, in Phoenix, the blistering heat. Take a look below to see what we have planned, mostly webinars, and review what happened in a fun filled May below.
June 20: Utah Technology Council
“Future of Technology in Utah “
PADT’s Anthony Wagner and James Barker will be attending this outstanding event featuring key members of the Utah technology community and the Governor or Utah, Gary Herbert.
June 28: Jefferson County Aerospace & Defense Small Business Industry Day
PADT’s Norman Stucker and James Barker will be manning a booth at this gathering of small but active Aerospace companies in the area to talk learn how everyone can contribute to Colorado’s dynamic Aerospace industry sector.
Join David Mastel the IT Manager/Chief HPC Architect for PADT, Inc. and ANSYS users in the Twin Cities area for an ANSYS user meeting including technical presentation with handouts.
We have several great Webinars on tap for June. All PADT webinars are recorded, so even if you can’t make the specified time register and we will send you a link to the recording.
|Tuesday, June 21, 2016 – 1:00 PM (MST)
Engineering the Internet of Things Devices with ANSYS Simulation
|Tuesday, June 28, 2016 – 11:00 AM (MST)
Modeling FDM Structure and Properties: The Key to Enabling Functional Part Production
|Tuesday, June 28, 2016 – Multiple Times
Flownex SE providing systems simulation to the Oil and Gas industry
May Events in Review
We attended a lot of events in May where we learned a ton, and continued to grow our network.
Patrick Barnett and Eric Miller ventured out to the heart of the Silicon Valley to attend Internet of Things World 2016. We learned a ton and met a couple of potential suppliers. Learn more about what we learned on our IoT page: www.padtinc.com/iot
The big, huge, important event for the month was RAPID in Orlando, FL. PADT’s Rey Chu and Dhruv Bhate attended, and Dhruv presented. The highlight of the show was seeing all the new products that were introduced, especially from Stratasys. We were also able to catch up with old friends and make some new ones.
The most informative event of the month was the National SBIR/STTR Conference. PADT’s Rob Rowan flew to our nation’s capital and was able to meet with many of the people who are in charge of the SBIR projects we are bidding on. Rob felt that the best part was getting to better know what our customers are really looking for.
As a parent I know that crayon management has always been a problem in our family, especially when we travel. We could have used the ReadyXO – a simple container that cleverly uses the lid to provide stability so it doesn’t tip over. Now is your chance to control your crayons and help fund a great entrepreneur, and PADT customer, through KickStarter.
This is a great idea, a simple solution, by an individual entrepreneur who applied good problem solving and engineering to develop a solution to something that most of us have dealt with when we were kids or as parents.
Check out the details at:
Scroll down and read “The Story.” If you didn’t want to get one out of simple necessity, when you hear about the inventor’s journey you will want to back this enterprise immediately.
One of the best parts of working at PADT is helping our customers make their ideas work. From a new valve actuator on the International Space Station to clever gadgets. Sometimes we see some great ideas from individual inventors that solve a day-to-day problem with a simple and elegant solution and get to help out just a little on their journey. This is a fantastic example of that.
Help us help them by pre-ordering your ReadyXO Crayon Box on KickStarter and spread the word through social media.
I don’t rant so publicly often, but this new trend to push very long payment terms on to small businesses is just bad for everyone involved. Join the fight! Read the blog posting, “A call for revolution: time to push back on long payment terms” and rise up!
This week’s TECHFLASH blog post in the Phoenix Business Journal takes a look at what companies can do to maximize the software investments they have already made. “Businesses should not worry about the software they need and use what they have” I offer up some best practices for maximizing your company’s software investment.