I just joined this forum, mostly driven by a particular project. The topic area is getting pretty interesting though, well beyond the current project.

But anyway, I was wondering who the membership is here, in terms of demographics such as education, profession, industry associations, hobbies, etc. Just curious. This has probably been done already, but I didn't find a Who Are You kind of thread.

Take a look at the "Members List" to see there are about 600 registered members. The list can be broken down in several categories and "Number of Post's" shows 6 members at or above 100 post's and the number of post's deteriorates to 3 on the first page of 100 names. At the tale end of the "Number of ost's" "Mebers List" are a bunch who have never posted and have probably forgot they even registered.

Flud Power does not have a huge number of trained persons so don't expect to see a much different array of names on the other forums dedicated to Fluid Power. There are only a few of us diehards who fell into the field as salesman or by default due to parents being in the field.

I am not looking for a big change in the situation in the near or distant future if the threads asking about a need for Trained, Dedicated Fluid Power persons is any indication of the general consensus of the posters here and on the other forums.

Learn all you can about Fluid Power and you will be an expert in 99% of the places you work or visit.

Not Grumpy just realstic.

I can imagine that, since in so many cases, hydraulic power (specifically) is probably not considered part of 'infrastructure', but rather is just seen as a component of some product maintained under an outsourced maintenance agreement. I could be completely wrong--but I'm thinking in-plant stuff like manufacturing and assembly equipment that's all under a maintenance deal with the manufacturers of that capital equipment, and the same way with mobile equipment.

I also wonder if there's much 'crossover' between expertise in servo-type hydraulics and Other--seems like these might be two different worlds. All I know is that it's all new to me--other than operating a floor jack.

Servo and Proportional valve use in my estimation is 5% or less of the circuits in Fluid Power and I for one always call an expert like Peter Nachtway when asked to do a circuit using them.

I do beleive Motion Control could be used in more circuits but a lot of users either don't know they exist or are very uncomfortable about applying and maintaining circuits using them.

Fluid conditioning is EXTRMELY important on circuits using Proporional or Servo valves and many have a hard time grasping that fact.

I never lacked for work in the other 95% of the Fluid Power world so I was not forced to learn the electronics and other things necessary to do Motion Control Circuits.

However, most persons versed in Motion Control often have come through On-Off valves and controls and have a good understanding of both fields.

At 75 it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY I will ever become proficient in Motion Control but I have phone numbers and email addresses of several who are and I am not bashful about saying to a customer that Motion Control is not a system I am comfortable working with. Ask Peter.

Most servo hydraulic systems are designed by the hydraulic distributor. Some hydraulic distributors can do the controls too. We encourage that and train the hydraulic distributors to be as proficient as possible. Many hydraulic distributors can do the whole project themselves if the project is a simple one or two axis projects. More complicated projects have a PLC involved. There are a few hydraulic distributors that have people that can program the PLCs too but they are rare. Normally they contract with a PLC programmer to do the programming. The PLC programmer usually is the one that programs and tunes the hydraulic motion controller. There are a few Parker HSEs that can setup the motion controllers by themselves so the PLC programmer only has to download a few parameters and make the operator interface.

I find there is more interest in motion control on the PLC forums. Even hydraulic motion control. Some of those PLC guys are very sharp and are willing to apply more math and physics that those on the hydraulic forums.

I am not as pessimistic as Bud. That may be because the projects that I get involved in are more sophisticated and probably have higher trained people involved.

quote:

I am not as pessimistic as Bud. That may be because the projects that I get involved in are more sophisticated and probably have higher trained people involved.

Peter could that be the magic word "TRAINED" has everyrhing to do with it?!?!?!?!?!

Where do FLuid Power persons get their TRAINING?????????

University?
College?
College of Hard Knocks?
Fluid Power Manufacturer?
Flud Power Distributor?
An Old Diehard like me or others?

I still am of the OPINION that the training of Fluid Power skills should not be as they are, BUT, you know from this and several other forums how that thought floundered and died.

From another thread on his forum:

"I looking for Sales Engineers and Sales/Service Engieers. Having good back ground in the field of hydraulics and pneumatics. Should be familiar with schematic drawings, trouble shooting and able to provide solutions to customers."

I believe this is the norm for the U.S. as well as this request from India.

When there is a degree for Fluid Power Engineers and Maintennce persons there will be a ready supply of peoplr to fill positions like this.

When will degeed Fluid Power people be the normal way of applying Fluid Power equipment?? I would like to see it yesterday but even someday looks bleak at present.

It would make sense to me that fluid power would be a concentration in a broader degree program, such as Mech E. My reasoning (i.e., assumption) is that fluid power systems are always employed in conjunction with some mechanical system of some kind. I guess to put it another way, hydraulics, at least, always comprises a sub-system of some mechanism.

[I'm using the word 'always' as a convenience--because of my lack of experience I'm unable to imagine any other case, that's all.]

But that's only one option. For so many actual applications, it's easy for me to see that trade schools and community colleges could offer programs specific and dedicated to fluid power.

The field seems unique to me in a way...I'm trying to find a good analogue, such as electrical power, HVAC or plumbing. These analogues aren't too good though--fluid power doesn't share the 'infrastructure' qualities in any applications I'm aware of. While ever bit as fundamental to the functioning of our world, I struggle finding anything quite like it.

In spite of this, I can see where there'd be a lot of value in a pseudo-certification type of structure, like those in the welding arts, that attests to a person's knowledge of the essentials. Everything I can imagine that is welded also exists almost entirely in the context of some larger mechanical system, yet welding schools and certifications abound.

quote:

It would make sense to me that fluid power would be a concentration in a broader degree program, such as Mech E.

That is true, BUT, many Mechanical systems are controlled by Electrical equipment so by the same reasonong the ME should do the Electrical also.

Also by that reasoning the EE would more likely be the logical one to do the Fluid Power circuit since it is so similar in operation to Electrical control. I teach all the Electrical Apprentices at a local plant and they picked up Fluid Power operation and schematics a lot quicker than the Mechanical Maintenence Apprentices. All I changed was I did not use NC and NO for flow paths but Normally Non-Passing and Normally Passing for flow.

Hmmm, could training Elecrical types to do the Fluid Power circuits be an answer, the answer. Nahhh, they could'nt live with the plumbing and oil mess. Oh well, back to square one.

quote:

Originally posted by Bud T:

quote:

It would make sense to me that fluid power would be a concentration in a broader degree program, such as Mech E.

That is true, BUT, many Mechanical systems are controlled by Electrical equipment so by the same reasonong the ME should do the Electrical also.

That is happening. A WSU there is now a mechatronics degree which is a blend of mechanical engineering and control engineering. I think it is a good thing. The sad part is that there is more interest in robots than anything practical for around here ( Pacific NW ). There are few if any robot manufacturers around here. But robots are cool.

quote:

Also by that reasoning the EE would more likely be the logical one to do the Fluid Power circuit since it is so similar in operation to Electrical control.

Yes, it is easy to relate an accumulator to a capacitor and a check valve to a diode.

quote:

I teach all the Electrical Apprentices at a local plant and they picked up Fluid Power operation and schematics a lot quicker than the Mechanical Maintenence Apprentices. All I changed was I did not use NC and NO for flow paths but Normally Non-Passing and Normally Passing for flow.

I laughed. Bud is learning PLCs to teach hydraulics.

quote:

Hmmm, could training Elecrical types to do the Fluid Power circuits be an answer, the answer.

The answer is yes for two reasons. You stated the first above. Electrical and hydraulic systems are similar. Second, electrical engineers know how to analyze circuits using calculus and differential equations. I know I took more math than what MEs were required to take.

quote:

Nahhh, they could'nt live with the plumbing and oil mess. Oh well, back to square one.

You seem to think the one level of training will fit all. I avoid getting oily. The hydraulic maintenance men do that. These are not the same people that are designing hydraulic circuits. At least not the high performance ones I get involved with.

Last week I got a call from a customer, a designer of high performance servo systems, and we were discussing the energy and the rate at which it must be added and removed from the oil ( system ). This designer is on the right track. He is asking the right questions. I don't see these kinds of people here. I know they exist somewhere but they are rare. These guys are not maintenance men. They are engineers with knowledge of physics and math and they have better things to do than get their hands oily. Hydraulic mathematical models are not easy to make.

Bongo Boy,
Don't let Peter lead you astray painting a picture of only the most highly educated people being qualified to design/troubleshoot hydraulic systems/high performance or otherwise. I've had to correct engineering screwups in several disciplines for over 20 years. I've yet to see a valve/cylinder/motor etc repaired or replaced with a keyboard and a calculator regardless of the educational level of any individual. Maytag

Peter wrote:

quote:

Last week I got a call from a customer, a designer of high performance servo systems,

You are still talking about 5% of the Fluid Power circuits, in the U.S. at least.
I know that is still a lot of circuits for you and the other approximately 9 persons who specialize in that area of Fluid Power. However, it is the other 95% of Flid Power circuits that are handled so poorly in many cases.

In my opinion the poor circuit design and maintenance is due to trying to have persons with little or no training and intermittent opportunity to practice and add to their skill by doing the work they had too little training for in the first place.

Oh well, SOMEDAY I HOPE!!!!!!!

Well, all I can suggest is to do what any good analyst would do--ask what problem it is you're trying to solve. Obviously, the objective is not to have degree programs (and regurgitates) in fluid power. The objective is, I guess, to implement safe systems that meet some business goal with minimum life-cycle cost.

Like so many technologies, there is a need for someone to not only design systems, but for others to design methodology for designing systems. So, while one level of expertise may need to generalize and/or abstract a problem and may need to solve those simultaneous systems of partial DEs, they should be providing the infrastructure needed by the other 15% of the world that needs to know how to instrument their designs to test them for soundness. These two groups are still highly educated...a third group--the other 80%--may need to only be highly trained.

But, I'd look first to the business situation to answer any question about why folks aren't trained or why no one seems to care who designs these systems. It almost certainly has to be a matter of lack of demand due to lack of negative impact. Can there be any other reason?

First I want to say, "Excellent Post." Lots of Food for Thought. It is good to get some real feedback and great observatons. THANKS!!!

Bongo Boy wrote:

[quote]The objective is, I guess, to implement safe systems that meet some business goal with minimum life-cycle cost.[/quote

I hoped that was what I trying to convey, again, thanks for putting the thought into different words.

Add to that Having persons on site or readily available that can engineer and/or maintain the systems at their optimum performance to reduce downtime and cost of maintenance and replacement parts.

A local company was replacing 185 GPM pumps at the rate of three per year at a cost of approximately $21'000.00 Ea. There were four of these pumps on two machines that operated 24/5. The main reason for their demise was contaminated oil due to the type of process performed. Adding Off-Line Filters now has pump changes at one every 4-5 years.

The thought behind the short life was "We've always changed pumps that often, Nothing New."

Also, I see safety as the big deterrent to having Trained Flud Power Persons. Unlike the Electrical field, about the most dangerous aspect of hydraulics is the possibility of gettin oil injected into the skin and the problems the contamination in the oil causes due to infection. I have only come across one case of this in my 40 years and the results of oil injection was not a pretty sight.

However in the Electrical field the number of persons, even trained ones, who are hurt each year is not a few. Think about that situation if Electrical training was handled like Fluid Power training?!?!?!?!

Could that have something to do with "Lack of Demand due to Lack of Negative Impact."

I would like to see a change in the way Fluid Power is implemented but that seems to be a very unpopular position. Fortuanately I don't have much more time to think about it but wanted to see if my thinking was off the wall or if it had some merit.

Since I'm evidently not the good analyst requiredit this quest has floundered and died several times since 1988 so could be this is the final death of a useless journey.

Did you notice there is a new member who posted in the industry connections? Jeremiah Johnson posted a link to this:

http://www.hydrauliceng.com/

Did you notice the triangle of disciplines? Hydraulic, mechanical and control? This is what is needed. It looks like Jeremiah will have the complete package. Willpower100 can also do the controls as well the hydraulics. Hydraulic only training is not enough. This is the kind of knowledge they are teaching at out local WSU branch. It is called mechatronics which is a mix of mechanical and control. These students don't get into the designing circuit boards like the EEs do. They learn more of the automation and control aspects. Obviously they learn about mechanical parts. I admit our local WSU branch doesn't go into hydraulic much. I think that is because no one feel comfortable teaching a 4 hour course or two at the college level. There are only a few colleges that do have a course in hydraulics. Jeremiah said he graduated from Purdue. I know that Purdue has a course in hydraulics and that they have some of our motion controllers in their hydraulic lab. Outside of Purdue, MSOE and a community college in NE Washington I don't know of other colleges that teach courses specific to hydraulic control.

Bud, maybe there aren't enough good instructors that can teach a meaningful class.

Bud, you said the servo hydraulic controls was only %5 of the market 5 years ago. How many hydraulic actuators is that? Mean while we have not been sitting on our hands. I think the percentage is much higher than that because fewer and fewer people are willing to put up with bang - bang actuators. These are being upgraded to hydraulic servo control or servo motor control. Either way the market is changing. The growth seems to be in mobile hydraulics where operators at the computers doing the control but even more of these applications are getting a computer assist.

Maytag, what percentage of the hydraulic actuators are using bang-bang controls where you work. How many of these are being converted to hydraulic servo on electric servo?

Peter Nachtwey