I see that this thread has slowed some...
I have been involved in the design and manufacturing of CAD software for 20+ years and in the manufacture of machinery for another dozen prior to that.
> ...are computers, CAD/CAM being used inappropriately,
> with less than ideal results?
When I first entered the CAD industry, it was very easy to look at certain physical products and know what CAD system was used during the design phase. CAD tools had (and still have) signature limitations. Today however there are extremely capable systems which have eliminated virtually all previous limitations. So, one then is left to wonder if the question is akin to the analog/digital argument that takes place among audiophiles: is something designed ON a CAD system inherently lifeless? sterile? Is there some aspect of a paper-based design that allows more soul?
IF that is not the question, then I think that computer aided design (for the most part) is simply being used today as drawing boards of years gone by - yes, there are programs that will perform analytical computations to determine the stress, strain, forces and torques of mechanical devices but I suspect (don't know for a fact) that a majority of those using CAD systems are not using those capabilities. Again, I suspect that most new "watches" (what the majority of individuals who think "watch" think - the external form, not the internal mechanism) are in fact cosmetic variations and simple derivations of hand calculated movements.
I am not stating that I have first-hand knowledge of the industry as a whole or for that matter that I know any of the details of our watch design customers.
It is certainly quite easy these days to do a "digital prototype" of seventeen variations on a theme without cutting any metal to examine ideas with (beyond) photorealistic images.
Using the computer to digitally "explode" a complex mechanism for others to understand (assembly or service technique) is great.
> GIVEN the extremely, almost inhuman, levels of precision
> possible with computers in design, and CNC, other computer
> guided processes, in production, shouldn't the level of reliability,
> precision, performance, be FAR HIGHER than it is?
This is also an area of some confusion. Some CAD systems divide the maximum size of the part being modeled into the theoretical number of measurable units possible to the given architecture of the host computer, be that 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit etc... So, for example the "...almost inhuman..." precision possible in such a system when considered against a part measuring less than 50mm in diameter becomes staggering albeit: meaningless. Manufacturing process being what it is, can not deal with numbers running out to 16 decimals. Perhaps were we talking production using atomic deposition, but we're not.
Again, there are companies who do in fact take advantage of computer-aided tolerant assembly, meaning that if two parts are supposed to go together one could assembly a slightly over-sized shaft into a a correspondingly over-sized hole. If you assume that all parts produced will fall into a bell curve with some being larger than nominal and some smaller, in theory you can selectively assemle ALL of the parts to designed tolerance by pairing the over/under parts accordingly.
While this is possible and practical for some companies and products, I'm not certain that this type of selective assembly is IN FACT used by those who build the devices we wear on our wrists.
So, all that being said - I just don't see that other than pretty illustrations of exploded movements that appear to be photographs in your favorite monthly magazine that CAD and CAM are really playing heavily in the "decline of horology".
Pressure to reduce the design cycle time to meet next year's trade show roll-out probably has more to do with the lack of adequate design testing than do the tools used during the design (by people) or the machine chosen to perform a particular portion of the manufacture.
|