Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SeattleRobotics] electronic cad

Expand Messages
  • Dave Hylands
    Hi Tom, ... You might want to take a look at InkScape: It s available for Windows, MacOSX, and Linux. Think Adobe Illustrator. --
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Tom,

      On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:38 PM, <twcarroll@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I've been searching for a windows equivalent of the old Macintosh MacDraw,- a basic drawing program that is not a CAD type.  I could do some amazing things with the old MacDraw.  I have AutoCad LT and Autocad 2000 and something on my computer, but something as simple as MacDraw with shading, snap-to grids, etc. is so much more handy.

      You might want to take a look at InkScape:
      <http://www.inkscape.org/>

      It's available for Windows, MacOSX, and Linux.

      Think Adobe Illustrator.

      --
      Dave Hylands
      Shuswap, BC, Canada
      http://www.DaveHylands.com/
    • Chris Baron
      I ve used Corel Draw for many years for all kinds of things from yard signs to CAD to book illustrations. You can get legal older versions on ebay for $25 or
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I've used Corel Draw for many years for all kinds of things from yard
        signs to CAD to book illustrations. You can get legal older versions on
        ebay for $25 or so and you get piles of fonts and clipart as well.

        For mechanical CAD we often do a 2D outline. Paste the printout (100%
        scale) onto metal or plastic and cut/drill to match.

        IIRC Corel has an electronic symbol clipart library along with
        connecting line segments that move with the symbols. I use Eagle for
        schematics but I realize some people don't want to climb the learning curve.

        Chris

        > I've been searching for a windows equivalent of the old Macintosh
        > MacDraw,- a basic drawing program that is not a CAD type. I could do
        > some amazing
        > things with the old MacDraw. I have AutoCad LT and Autocad 2000 and
        > something on my computer, but something as simple as MacDraw with
        > shading,
        > snap-to grids, etc. is so much more handy.
        > Tom C.
        >
        > In a message dated 11/29/2009 11:21:41 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
        > kb7wnz@... <mailto:kb7wnz%40hotmail.com> writes:
        >
        > I'm looking for suggestions to do simple electronic cad or drawings.
        > I've been running into the need to send drawings out lately for some
        > simple
        > stuff and I'm sure there's some thing better than MS paint.
        >
        > Thanks Rob
      • dcwjobs2004
        You are looking for Visio. I started on MacDraw and then had to move back to the PC. I searched seriously for a couple of years before I found Visio, which is
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          You are looking for Visio.

          I started on MacDraw and then had to move back to the PC. I searched seriously for a couple of years before I found Visio, which is very close to MacDraw. I have been using it comfortably for a decade or two.

          BTW, the draw program in Open Office is like Visio/MacDraw only a little different. You can play with it for free if you want to avoid the $260 charge for Visio 2009 from MicroSoft.

          OTOH, check Ebay for earlier versions of Visio. I have been using Visio 2000 since ... 2000.

          Dave Wyland


          --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, twcarroll@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > I've been searching for a windows equivalent of the old Macintosh
          > MacDraw,- a basic drawing program that is not a CAD type. I could do some amazing
          > things with the old MacDraw. I have AutoCad LT and Autocad 2000 and
          > something on my computer, but something as simple as MacDraw with shading,
          > snap-to grids, etc. is so much more handy.
          > Tom C.
          >
          > In a message dated 11/29/2009 11:21:41 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
          > kb7wnz@... writes:
          >
          > I'm looking for suggestions to do simple electronic cad or drawings.
          > I've been running into the need to send drawings out lately for some simple
          > stuff and I'm sure there's some thing better than MS paint.
          >
          > Thanks Rob
          >
        • dcwjobs2004
          Here is an interesting quote from an article in ControlDesign.com. However, automated machines are not autonomous. Material deviations or component
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Here is an interesting quote from an article in ControlDesign.com.

            "However, automated machines are not autonomous. Material deviations or component malfunctions still require an operator to investigate and alleviate the situation."

            This points to an interesting definition of "autonomous", as meaning that a machine can operate (correctly) without operator intervention even in situations of malfunctions, etc.

            This looks close to an operational definition. The degree of autonomy (0-100%) could be defined by the degree of operator intervention required to keep the machine doing its job. A simple approach would be that autonomy is the percentage of problems (weighted for severity) that the machine can handle in its normal range of operation versus those that require human intervention.

            Just got me thinking,

            Dave Wyland
          • John Palmisano
            Humans require doctors when they fail. Your definition has a big hole =P John Palmisano Robotics Specialist www.societyofrobots.com 2009/12/2 dcwjobs2004
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Humans require doctors when they fail. Your definition has a big hole =P




              John Palmisano
              Robotics Specialist
              www.societyofrobots.com




              2009/12/2 dcwjobs2004 <dcwyland@...>
               



              Here is an interesting quote from an article in ControlDesign.com.

              "However, automated machines are not autonomous. Material deviations or component malfunctions still require an operator to investigate and alleviate the situation."

              This points to an interesting definition of "autonomous", as meaning that a machine can operate (correctly) without operator intervention even in situations of malfunctions, etc.

              This looks close to an operational definition. The degree of autonomy (0-100%) could be defined by the degree of operator intervention required to keep the machine doing its job. A simple approach would be that autonomy is the percentage of problems (weighted for severity) that the machine can handle in its normal range of operation versus those that require human intervention.

              Just got me thinking,

              Dave Wyland


            • Rob Purdy
              Actually humans require an under taker when they fail . Humans require a Dr. for high level repair. But they can still make that choice. They also heal but
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Actually humans require an under taker when they "fail".
                 
                Humans require a Dr. for high level repair.  But they can still make that choice. They also heal but thas nothing to do with concious autonomy.   It still fits.
                 

                To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
                From: palmisano@...
                Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:53:34 -0500
                Subject: Re: [SeattleRobotics] Autonomy is as autonomy does

                 
                Humans require doctors when they fail. Your definition has a big hole =P




                John Palmisano
                Robotics Specialist
                www.societyofrobots .com



                 
              • John Palmisano
                Humans can autonomously fail at a task and require assistance, too. I ve never had interest in autonomy , but instead robustness . Meaning, how well can it
                Message 7 of 16 , Dec 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Humans can autonomously fail at a task and require assistance, too.

                  I've never had interest in 'autonomy', but instead 'robustness'. Meaning, how well can it accomplish a defined task and for how long until it fails. Robustness is a much more practical and more quantitative measurement of robot systems. Unassisted recovery failure will make a robot more robust without a doubt.



                  John Palmisano
                  Robotics Specialist
                  www.societyofrobots.com



                  2009/12/2 Rob Purdy <kb7wnz@...>
                   

                  Actually humans require an under taker when they "fail".
                   
                  Humans require a Dr. for high level repair.  But they can still make that choice. They also heal but thas nothing to do with concious autonomy.   It still fits.
                   


                  To: SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com
                  From: palmisano@...
                  Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:53:34 -0500
                  Subject: Re: [SeattleRobotics] Autonomy is as autonomy does


                   
                  Humans require doctors when they fail. Your definition has a big hole =P




                  John Palmisano
                  Robotics Specialist
                  www.societyofrobots.com



                   


                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.