Author Archives: Hermann Erzberger



Disseminationmaterial from MES

Hello partners,

I upoaded material (invitations, presentations, pictures …) to google drive into the dissemination folder.

Greetings to all,

Hermann



Hello,

I uploaded a document for the handbook for TS-II, learn-cont #1 and assessment. I used the layout from CENFIM, Jorge please check, if it is ok in this way. The work is not finished.

Greetings,

Hermann

 

  

Hello Jorge, hello Teresa, hello everyone,

You are still waiting of an answer to your last comments:

We distinguish “programming” and “simulation” because we think, you can generate a program on paper as well as with support of a system. The students should be able to do both. So that is, why the use of the program system is an own “skill” for us.

Proposal for: “Use simulation software in order to detect program errors and to optimize the toolpath”:

Level 1:    Can generate simple programs via software and simulate them. Need support to find errors
and eliminate them.

Level 2:    Can generate simple programs via software and simulate them. Find errors himself and can
eliminate them.

Level 3:    Can generate simple programs via software and simulate them. Find errors himself and can
eliminate them. Is able to optimize toolpath by analyzing the simulated program, taking
into consideration the production type.

 

To the other points:

I think my formulation was not good. When I wrote “competence”, I meant it in my sense as I described (to be able to draw conclusions, making decisions etc.). Not as a competence like in the paper but more like assemssment criterias. A discrimination to the three levels could be:

Select the best method..:

Level 1:    Needs help with learning and understanding different methods and to find the best
method.
Level 2:    Knows different methods but needs help within the decision to choose the best.
Level 3:    Is able to choose the best method according to the production type and part specification

 

Choose the machining directions … :
Level 1:    Can distinguish different machining directions.
Level 2:    Can distinguish different directions and can estimate the influence and effect of bit
deflection and vibrations.
Level 3:    Is able to optimize the cutting process depending of all influences like machining direction,
bit deflection, vibration and machining forces.

Greetings,

Hermann



Hello Teresa,
hello to the other partners,

my colleague Jochen and me worked through the paper of Teresa to the learning outcome. As you know, we use a totally different system for assessment. But nevertheless there are a lot of similar criteria for evaluate the students work.
The definitions and classifications made in the paper seem logical and reasonable for us. We can agree to the proposal. The following items I would like to note:

 

Unit #1 of LO:

#1: Skills / Develop the process plan…. / 3rd column: I would also add in this point the cutting tools.

#2: Skill
To the proposal:
“Use simulation software’s in order to detect programme errors and to optimize the toolpath” for me is a skill. You have to train it to do it well, and you can improve it by training.

The two points: – Select the best methods …
- Choose the machining directions ….
are more a competence, because you must recognize relationships and have to make decisions.

 

Unit #2 of LO:

#2/ Knowledge:

Program structure, preparatory function …..:
In this point tool radius compensation is part of level 2, but in Unit #1 it is part of level 1. Where is the difference?

Greetings,

Hermann



Hi Jorge and José,

thank you for your answers to my feedback.

Jorge, I understand now, in which way you define the development need.

It is not my intention, to use only one or two special software components or to use only software components at all. I also support to use as much different learning resources as possible, as every learner brings different abilities with him: Different perceptiveness, individual pace of learning, different knowledge etc.
I hope, my understanding correspond with yours, Jorge (and all other partners, of course). I think our goal is to let the learner work and learn self-orientated as much as possible. To realize this aim, of course it is necessary to embed as much different learning resources as possible, due to the reasons I mentioned above.

Greetings,

Hermann



Feedback

Hello together,

For your information:

1) I made some supplements at the part of MES (WS#4.0 List of existing Learning resources …)

2) I added also some comments/remarks in the document: WS4_Matrix of Specification_MES_Homework_CENFIM …

Is also worked through the contributions from CENFIM and IMH. In principle there is nothing to add from my side.

There is only one question which I would like to discuss (to be sure):

In some cases, I estimate the development need not with 100% E.g. if there are learning resources from a system like HIT or Keller or other similar software. In such cases I think, we have not to develop everything new, for there is already material we can use.

I would like to have a precise definiton/description for that point. so that we are sure to talk and evaluate in the same sense.

Greetings,

Hermann



Comments to Worksheet #3

Concerning Point 4 (Learning Recources):

- I agree that we should develop a big collection of excercises, tests etc. together.

-> how do you handle the copyright within your countries?

In class we also use books with exercises/drawings with copyright. The german law does not allow to use them in public, especially it is forbidden to digitize them. But this is exactly what we have to do?!

Is it allowed to use world skill test projects e.g. (see at Jon)

 

Concerning Point 6 (Shop floor environment)

- the information listed contains a lot of important items for the concept of self organized learning (e.g. #layout functionalities)

- it describes a perfect concept for self orientated learning, especially the concept with learning spots for learning different subjects is a good approach.

Problem:
MES doesn’t have this structure completely yet.We do have parts of it, e.g. in our shop floor we have an area with computers and an area with machines close together. But we do not have the described learnings spots for e.g. work holding devices etc.

My question:
How detailed is the described structure to be realized within the project? How detailed can it be realized?
For MES we have to involve the pilot course into our current organisation  of th school.

It is important to know, that our school is not totally autonomous in that point. There is a administration in the town of Stuttgart, which is responsible for the buildings, and all the equipment. And of course they are responsible for the money as well. E.g. we do not have a zero point climbing system or tables of vacuum, magnetic yet.
Of course we will try to arrange learning spots as far as it is possible, but we cannot realize the described concept.

-> May we should define a “minimum standard”?

How is this point treated in the schools of the partners?



WS2

Hello altogether,

Thank you, Jorge, for your work. I agree with the common worksheet 2.

Just fhe following remarks:

1) Unit 1 (programming):
- Fundamental of cutting technology:
“Point: Different resources that support the calculation of the cutting data”
I think it can also be part of programming. If you generate a programme you have to define cutting data as well. So you should know, where you can get them.

- “Complexe geometries:
I think it means not 3D-geometry but contours with different radiuses (tangent/not tangent [in Heidenhain circle with CT/CC]), chamfers etc.

- “ATTITUDES”:
Last heading is a mistake: PROACTIVE, not PEOACTIVE

2) Fundamentals of a CNC-Machine (in both units):
What about different position measurement systems? Are they included in what you call ” architecture & axis configuration?)

3) Unit 2:
In generell you have all points of the left column from WS1 also in WS2 on the left side:
I miss only two points in Unit 2:
- workholding systems …
- set zero point, check it …
Is this intentional or did you forget them?

4) Some common K-S-C:
I think some knowledge is needed in both units. It’s related close together.
The question will be, in which sequence the units will be done. May be, the contence is to be learned the first time in detail and can be only repeated the second time?

Kind regards,

Hermann