Author Topic: New Pick and Place design ideas  (Read 56449 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #75 on: May 10, 2016, 01:19:22 pm »
Regarding feeders. just put a camera above the pickup places (or a few) and just measure the rotation / location offsets while the head is moving.  Using this method something like the cheap neoden 4 feeders can be used.  No need for (ultra) precise >150$ feeders.

Or the other method:  Expose more than one component at a time, take picture, calculate offsets for them all (lets say 5 components) -> save those values -> pick and place.  When you know in software that 5 are placed you can just expose another 5 components and repeat the process.  This would be a mix between a tape pulling feeder and sticking component strips to the table.

Yes, the method I described previously (only necessary for tiny components) is to move then center the down-looking "nozzle camera" over the component before moving the nozzle over the component (the nozzle being a constant, known, fixed x and/or y distance from the "nozzle camera").  That's similar to what you say.

While this could indeed be elaborated to support 4 or 5 adjacent feeders, my tendency is to accept slower speed in exchange for lower cost, which means one nozzle... at least in the initial model of the machine.  But there would be nothing that prevents elaborating this to multiple nozzles if we came to understand that was appropriate for some reason (customer demand and willingness to pay for the enhancement).

I very much favor the KISS principle, as well as reducing complexity, parts count and cost as much as possible.  It appears rx8pilot agrees in principle about most of this too.

-----

As a separate but related issue:  A year or two ago I saw a youtube video of a DIY machine (I think) that lowered the nozzle onto the tape, then pulled the tape the appropriate distance by moving the nozzle head along the y axis, then raised the nozzle, moved the nozzle over the component (now where it belongs), lowered the nozzle onto the component, then raised the nozzle and component, then wandered off to place the component.

While that seems like a LOT of work to put on the pick-and-place machine to avoid the need to turn the tape sprocket, this certainly does eliminate some parts, totally eliminates the need for an electric or mechanical system (in the feeder or machine) to move the tape, and is very compatible with the approach I mentioned earlier in this message.

Anyone with comments about this should reply, since I don't have practical experience with feeders to judge this matter very effectively.
 

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #76 on: May 10, 2016, 01:28:20 pm »
Now that you mention it, I don't see why they didn't just stack up a whole bunch of those components right against each other in a tube with the same ID as the component rectangle (which would have to have a spring-loaded pusher at the opposite end from where the components exit the tube.  Except, of course, if any slack in the pusher ever developed, components in the tube would rotate, get flipped, get jammed or otherwise messed up.  So I guess I see why that didn't happen.  Sure would have been a lot more compact though![/font]
If I get you correctly you mean something like a bullet-clip for automatic rifles, just stack m up and shove them out one by one.  Replacing is just taking out the old clip inserting the new one instead of removing reels and peeling tape and so on and on.

It should be possible for non emc components like resistors and capacitors.  But probably there is a risk the components will stick together, probably the reason they are individually packaged.

Yes, exactly correct.  I should have thought of that analogous example (the bullet-clip).

Yes, I was only thinking of this for caps, resistors, and maybe diodes and such that have rectangular bodies.  But the reasons we identified were probably too annoying to solve.  That, plus it is better, in general and when possible, to "do everything the same way", and apparently tape was compatible with that principle.

I'm not sure how many (if any) components fit this requirement, but maybe you can tell me.  How many tiny caps and resistors can be placed with any side of the package down on the PCB and still have the conductor on both ends against the solder-paste and PCB.  All?  Some?  Few?  None?  Since the tiny caps and resistors aren't polarized, if they can be placed on the PCB in any configuration, some kind of vibrating tub of components with rectangular recesses in a [rotating] disk at the bottom might capture individual components and rotate/feed them to an exit point.  But... while very compact... I feel we're biting off a new project and trying to re-invent the wheel without sufficient gain.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 03:46:40 pm by bootstrap »
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6572
  • Country: nl
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #77 on: May 10, 2016, 01:38:24 pm »
I don't think it matters that much how the component is placed except with resistors >0402 you want to see the value on top.
Perhaps some capacitors that are not equally in width and height might want to be placed a particular way.
Anycase, just shortly going through this tesis (unfortunately i do not have the time) I noticed that in figure 4.1 on page30 that with a carousel shooter the components should be pre-processed on a feeder carriage, the turret heads stays static. Also in that same thesis interesting examples of other machines where the head only moves in the Y direction while the pcb moves in the X direction.
https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-091599-123343/unrestricted/Complete_Thesis.pdf
 

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2016, 02:36:46 pm »

X/Y positioning is simple relative to the details of feeders, vision, nozzle changers, part release, pickup fault detection, fast part change over, tall parts, tube parts, etc are where things get challenging.  All of those challenges start getting in the way of other things and the machine gets crowded and complicated very quickly.  It seems that most discussions focus on the placement of the parts, where I would focus on how to deal with delivery and pickup of parts which where the real challenges are.

Well, I'm not sure x/y positioning is simple when that positioning needs to precise AND reliable AND repeatable on every machine you ship.  And by "reliable" I do NOT mean 1% errors like some folks in this forum seem to.  I'm not exactly sure what I mean, but I'm guessing something like 0.01% (1 out of 10,000... and that still seems much too high to me).

HOWEVER, I distinguish between errors that make the PCB "wrong" and those that "stop the process, BEEP loudly, and tell the operator what went wrong so he can fix the issue in a few seconds, then hit a "continue button".  These kinds of error cases I'm more accepting of, because they don't lead to bad PCBs.

Along these lines, the more "real world vision" a system has, the more errors can be detected and corrected automatically (or with loud beeps and operator notification and intervention, bypassed or compensated for without PCB errors).

For example, in the vision-heavy design I described previously, after the nozzle picks up a component, it moves to an up-looking "component camera".  If the nozzle failed to pick up the component, the software will easily be able to tell it is looking at an empty nozzle (without component) rather than a component on the nozzle.  So failures to pick up a component at the tape will be noticed.  This also catches the case where components are picked up [but not securely enough] and thus fall off when the nozzle accelerates and decelerates to place itself over the up-looking "component camera".  As long as there's no crucial mechanics or anything between the tape and [fixed] "component camera", the software can simply go back and grab another component and not worry so much about the lost component (unless it is expensive or otherwise problematic, in which case the machine can BEEP loudly to summon the operator).

The same principle applies to components placed on the PCB.  After a component is placed, the down-looking "nozzle camera" can move over the component and make sure the component is on the PCB in the position and orientation the component belongs (and didn't fall off the nozzle before it got over the final location (or something)).  Though the software can't be sure the component is precisely where it should be, it can certainly detect significantly offset or rotated components (due to component sliding or rotating on the nozzle tip due to bad vacuum seal between nozzle and component or other issue).

I don't have enough experience to anticipate every possible error case, but clearly vision approaches can be made able to detect errors and problems that systems without [as much] vision inherently cannot detect.


Quote
The PCB has fiducials and sits perfectly still the whole time.  In a practical sense, there is no concern for vision focus, flex, or temperature on the placement end of the process.

You may need to kick my butt... or perhaps my head... if I've become too enamored or impressed with the "PCB feeder mechanism" (or whatever it is called) on the neoden4.  The one that moves one PCB out of the working area and into a staging area (for operator pickup and inspection, or potentially directly onto the reflow-oven conveyor)... and then moves another empty PCB to where components can be placed on it.

Actually, having said that "out loud" (so to speak), I realize that I prefer not to support moving PCBs directly to the reflow-oven.  To do that implies a level of confidence that even I don't hope to achieve... like no errors of any kind on 99.999% of PCBs.  I think anything we hope to achieve here should be inspected by a vision system AND a human being before it is allowed to move on to the reflow-oven [conveyor].

Actually, having said that "out loud" (so to speak), it may be potentially feasible for a very, very, very advanced and heavily developed vision system program to automatically inspect the PCBs.  On first, second and third thought this seems absurd for our machine.  But on fourth thought, this is not completely beyond what MIGHT be practical EVENTUALLY.  The reason is, an algorithm that has the benefit of dozens if not hundreds of images of that same PCB that have been later verified as FULLY FUNCTIONAL == ERROR FREE could be leveraged into a fairly reliable vision system driven error detection process.

Having said all that, what I mean to say is, we almost certainly won't get that point by the time the machine is completed and on the market, but could possibly hope to achieve that "someday", and should therefore probably not design such capabilities OUT of the machine (design the machine in such a way that "PCB feeders" cannot be supported in the future).

Maybe you or others have comments about that.

Quote
The feeders, on the other hand, have a much more challenging task of moving the tapes to the exact position and picking up the parts without them flipping on end or diagonally.  The pickup part of the effort is where I have all of my problems - not putting the parts down.  Most (if not all) high-end machines put an enormous effort into the feeders to reduce the mis-picks to a very low number.  This effort makes the feeders very expensive and sophisticated.  In my case (and many other businesses like mine) we need a lot of feeders on the machine so saving money here is a way to drastically reduce the overall solution cost.

Unless you tell me otherwise, 99.9% of these problems occur with fairly tiny components (0805 and smaller).  True or False?

You see, one of the reasons I become even more sold on the vision approaches I've been advocating is precisely these kinds of feeder issues.  As I already described not far above in this message, the vision system I described way back on page 1 or page 2 of this topic (the message that lists the several steps in process A, B, C, D, E, F), vision makes it possible to at least DETECT mis-picked and dropped components (and take corrective actions), and perhaps more opportunities to remove the stringent burden and requirements on feeders that we haven't even recognized yet.  For sure the approach I described in that old message can assure the center of the nozzle tip comes down PRECISELY on the center of [tiny] components.  I have to assume the main reason components tip over and such is due to the center of the nozzle not being quite exactly over the center of the component.  True?

Quote
Also, feeder banks would be on my ideal machine so that I can be loading a job of 40 feeders while the machine is using 40 different feeders.  When it is time to switch - 2 banks of 20 feeders are swapped and ready in a minute, instead of loading each feeder one by one.  Each feeder should have a QR code or bar coded that allows the machine to identify it and associate the part that was loaded.  The QR code should be visible to the placement vision camera so it adds next to no cost at all.  The software (including offline software for setup) is where the codes get matched with the parts.

I very much agree with everything you say here about feeders and feeder banks, and swapping feeders and feeder-banks while the machine is placing components on PCBs from other feeders and feeder-banks.

And yes, we'd be CRAZY not to support something like the QR code.  That's something the down-looking "nozzle camera" should be able to read.  You should tell me what QR stands for, but I understand it to be a code that lets you know what components are on the installed reel.  Probably not the # of the component in the BOM, but something more general, right?

Having said all this, we definitely must be careful that accidental bumping and forces imposed by the operator while changing feeders and feeder-banks doesn't screw up any ongoing operations or processes, and doesn't make them less precise somehow (by bending, twisting, jiggling, vibrating or otherwise altering the fixed relationships of all the parts of the machine that need to stay in fixed relationships to work properly).  I worry about this a lot, because it is a typical kind of situation (from my experience) that can royally screw up a robotics device but not be detected.  Of course, I've never worked on a pick-and-place machine, but my past experiences with even sturdier devices than I imagine our machine raise a "caution flag" in front of me.


Quote
The placement speed is generally not a limitation in a small entry level environment - it is machine setup and parts management.  If I could have 40-60 parts in the machine on banks and swap out the banks in a minute or two to run a totally different job - the machine would be gold.  The feeders would have to be very clever to achieve the precision and the low-cost which would allow a working set and a standby set of feeders to swap super fast.

Yes, I'm willing to give up as much placement speed as we need to achieve other goals... unless it starts to get absurd (beyond 5x to 10x slower than low-end commercial machines that place 0201s and 0.50mm pitch).

To the rest of the above paragraph I say "damn straight".  And I more-or-less replied-to this part elsewhere.


Quote
I have made arc-second accurate positioners and very repeatable mounting fixtures for imaging (optical) - This is where I would put most of my efforts.  After a feeder/pickup scheme is developed - I would then move on to the XY gantry and other systems.

Sounds like you've worked with telescope systems before too!  That's how I originally got into everything I do.  I was totally hooked on space, astronomy, telescopes and related instrumentation by the time I was 8 years old.  The pursuit of that interest led to everything else.  Learning to program (my first program was an optical design and analysis program).  Learning to design optics (with my program).  Learning to develop microcomputers (to run my program and operate instrumentation and later automate telescopes and instrumentation).  Learn to write compilers to make my software faster.  Learn to fabricate diffraction limited optics (to build the optical systems I invented and designed).  Learn interferometers to design and fabricate my own optical testing equipment.  Learn photography and fancy darkroom techniques (to capture images of astronomical objects).  Learn image processing (to improve and extra information from these photos)... and I'm just getting started on how far that process has taken me.  It really is amazing to look back and that whole path, which I rarely do.  I've spent enormous quantities of time at astronomical observatories, including a 7 year stint as sole occupant of a remote self-sufficient mountaintop observatory.  Where I got absolute oodles of work and projects done, and totally cemented my hermit tendencies forever.

Anyway, if you want to tell me a bit about what aspects of optical systems you got into, that would be cool.[/font]
« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 04:03:02 pm by bootstrap »
 

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #79 on: May 10, 2016, 03:31:58 pm »
I don't think it matters that much how the component is placed except with resistors >0402 you want to see the value on top.  Perhaps some capacitors that are not equally in width and height might want to be placed a particular way.
Any case, just shortly going through this thesis (unfortunately i do not have the time) I noticed that in figure 4.1 on page30 that with a carousel shooter the components should be pre-processed on a feeder carriage, the turret heads stays static.  Also in that same thesis interesting examples of other machines where the head only moves in the Y direction while the pcb moves in the X direction.  https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-091599-123343/unrestricted/Complete_Thesis.pdf

Some thoughts page 30~33 or so remind me of...

The idea of moving the PCB in x and/or y instead of the "nozzle head" is interesting.  However, this just adds to the number of moving parts, because the nozzle head needs to move for other purposes (like go fetch components), so most likely the advantages of two independent motion systems are more than offset for our target market by increased cost and complexity.

These pages made me remember the first time I saw a youtube video of component shooters.  When I saw the PCB moving back and forth at high speed, I remember thinking "no freaking way would I depend on the acceleration to NOT move any component".  How fast "works [safely]" is a function of too many variables, including two or three characteristics of the solder paste, how firmly the component was pushed into the solder paste, the mass of the component, the area of the component [pads] in contact with the solder paste, and more.  I remember saying to myself "this kid doesn't want to design a machine like that, with all those complexities and potential failure modes".  I did see in the pages that the acceleration of the PCB table is variable, and changed to stay below the computed "maximum acceleration" value of the worst case component currently on the PCB.

Those shooter machines are definitely impressive, but not where I'm coming from (or going to).
 

Offline rx8pilot

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3644
  • Country: us
  • If you want more money, be more valuable.
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #80 on: May 10, 2016, 04:37:56 pm »
Some notes from experience:
Don't F*** around trying to use vias as fiducials. I have tried, and it sucks. Via placements are based on the signals - not geometry correction. Many have traces coming from them which distorts the geometric center. Most are in the the wrong place. None of them are ID'd with the silkscreen. It takes seconds to drop proper fids on a layout that are marked, have perfect geometry, and are optimized to get the best geometric corrections. Simple. All the talk about scanning the PCB and looking at pad with paste, etc is senseless. The machine I use is ANCIENT and with 3 well placed fiducials can nail .4mm and 0201 every single time without fail. A modern vision system, even a simple one, can outperform it. You are solving a problem that does not exist. I did have to use some old boards where only vias and other holes were available, and it was a lot worse. It worked well enough to get through the batch, but I simply added real fids on the next run and have not had a single alignment issue even with the fine pitch stuff.

Like I said earlier - placing the part is FAR easier than picking it up in the first place. Feeders are the bigger challenge. The idea of using a camera to correct for poor part presentation on a feeder is not always going to work either. A SOD523 diode is black on glossy black plastic tape with a tiny pickup area. A camera may struggle with figuring that one out, at best it would be slow and at worse it would fail to pick-up correctly. The most proper long term solution is to have a precision indexing feeder IMHO - maybe use the camera during setup to get an offset.

My ideas on how to design a machine have changed substantially after I got a machine, repaired it and started using it for real work on fine pitch PCB's. I have a far more clear understanding of the challenge because I have met the challenge. If I designed a PnP machine a year ago, I doubt it would be very good, if I designed it today - it would be far better and take a lot less time. I suspect I would mimic a lot of how my own Quad machine is setup but with modern motion control and vision - making it a much simpler machine. The side scanner is the best feature - it uses a laser/line scanner to image the side of the part while rotating to get it's orientation while in motion. It is very reliable and can be used for nearly all parts. Every single part is vision aligned, but without stopping. There is also an up facing camera for very fine pitch BGA's but I rarely use it in practice since the spin alignment works so well. Keep in mind this is a decades old machine and it works quite well in that regard. A modern 'clone' of a Quad IV-C would be a fantastic starter machine and the engineering effort would be far, far less than going from scratch and learning the dirty details of every single sub-system.


What does not work is if the feeders over/underfeed and the nozzle grabs the edge of the part. It will be picked up at an oblique angle and the alignment will fail. The part has to be in a predictable location to be picked up correctly - after that things are easy and very predictable.

If you make a $10k machine that mis-picks and requires constant supervision and possibly re-work - it will be more expensive than a very reliable $20k machine to even a small business like mine. Most business owners know the value of time and will be sensitive to that. Another thing that takes a lot of labor money is machine setup. To be viable - it really needs to be easy to setup and intuitive to operate. This includes recovering from mistakes, mis-picks, etc. The long discussion about precision and advanced imaging says nothing at all about what it will be like to setup and operate the machine when a deadline is looming. I will maintain that the placement effort is easy and should not be the initial focus of any design effort.

Ask yourself what are the problems you are trying to solve:

Cost?
Fine pitch placements?
FAST setup/changover?
Reliability?
Size?
Component mix?
Factory400 - the worlds smallest factory. https://www.youtube.com/c/Factory400
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13971
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #81 on: May 10, 2016, 05:06:49 pm »
The most proper long term solution is to have a precision indexing feeder IMHO - maybe use the camera during setup to get an offset.
What you can do pretty much "for free" is look for consistent offsets during vision and use this to home in on the optimum pick posiiton.
Quote
My ideas on how to design a machine have changed substantially after I got a machine, repaired it and started using it for real work on fine pitch PCB's. I have a far more clear understanding of the challenge because I have met the challenge.
Couldn't agree more. Anyone trying  to design a pick & place who hasn't got  experience using will never make a good job of it.
It's one of those problems where the basic priciples are very simple, but it's all in a huge number of little details.

 
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline rx8pilot

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3644
  • Country: us
  • If you want more money, be more valuable.
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #82 on: May 10, 2016, 05:27:45 pm »
What you can do pretty much "for free" is look for consistent offsets during vision and use this to home in on the optimum pick posiiton.

Not a bad idea to average the feeder error over the course of many picks, is that what you are suggesting? My machine has standard feeders that are good for 0603 and larger. There are also precision feeders that can go for 0201 and maybe 1005. After a number of repairs, I have considered how they could be simplified. There are quite a few options for simplification that I do not believe would compromise the positioning repeatability.

Factory400 - the worlds smallest factory. https://www.youtube.com/c/Factory400
 

Online mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13971
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #83 on: May 10, 2016, 05:42:39 pm »
What you can do pretty much "for free" is look for consistent offsets during vision and use this to home in on the optimum pick posiiton.

Not a bad idea to average the feeder error over the course of many picks, is that what you are suggesting?
Yes, this is what my machine does. Obviously relies on feeder errors being consistent, but should help keep as much margin as possible to deal with random errors. For the really small parts, unless you have hi-res downward vision, probably the only sensible way to derive the exact pick centre position is like this.
 
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6572
  • Country: nl
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #84 on: May 10, 2016, 06:01:13 pm »
The idea of moving the PCB in x and/or y instead of the "nozzle head" is interesting. 
How about moving the nozzle head AND the pcb both in x and y direction?
Crazy? Expensive? Bear with me.
If you want a movement accuracy (step) of lets say 0,01mm this is going to cost you big time if you have larges axis of 600mm or so or will be slooooooooooow (gearbox).
But if the pcb for example only has to move 10mm in X or Y then a 0,01mm accuracy is easy and cheap with a simple stepper motor with gearbox.
So the large movements you do cheap and reasonable accurate like 0,1 mm or so and the last correction is the pcb table with 0,01mm.
You could even go so far to use what in cnc land is called a 4th axis and that is to rotate the pcb slightly for extremely small corrections, therefore making the nozzlehead rotational stepper cheaper / lighter.
Just an out of the box thought, we are brainstorming.  :)
 

Offline rx8pilot

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3644
  • Country: us
  • If you want more money, be more valuable.
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #85 on: May 10, 2016, 06:12:10 pm »
There are machines that do this (I think) and it has at least two problems. The first is that it adds substantial complexity which will increase cost and reduce reliability. To overcome the reliability hit, the cost can be increased even more. The second is that PCB's with heavy parts can be disturbed by the rapid movements.

I would be looking for the lowest part count and fewest sources of oops as possible. Adding an additional coordinated X/Y stage would have me frazzled from the beginning. At this price point - super speed is not a driving factor over reliability, cost, and ease of use.
Factory400 - the worlds smallest factory. https://www.youtube.com/c/Factory400
 

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6572
  • Country: nl
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #86 on: May 10, 2016, 06:36:19 pm »
its not about the speed it is about the accuracy and reducing the costs.
 

Offline rx8pilot

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3644
  • Country: us
  • If you want more money, be more valuable.
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #87 on: May 10, 2016, 06:57:48 pm »
Just as an educated guess - I would not expect that approach to be lower cost when compared to a well designed motion system.
Factory400 - the worlds smallest factory. https://www.youtube.com/c/Factory400
 

Offline Koen

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 502
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #88 on: May 10, 2016, 07:39:18 pm »
I agree with Mike and Carlos. Don't go all-in on your first machine. At least, visit an assembly shop, talk with the guys loading it, ask yourself why the engineers of this industry aren't doing it your way, ask yourself why you think your way is better and so on.

One often overlooked point and a simple red flag to readers in DIY CNC machines projects, whatever they are, is the lack of interest for metrology. Dudes are always going to build machines precise to 0.01mm but have never heard of a dial indicator or ignore the price of a long-enough reference plane or use an out-of-class measurement device or have no clue how awful it is to align 3 axis with each other, let-alone 5.
 
The following users thanked this post: mrpackethead

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #89 on: May 10, 2016, 07:56:30 pm »
Some notes from experience:
Don't F*** around trying to use vias as fiducials.  I have tried, and it sucks.  Via placements are based on the signals - not geometry correction.  Many have traces coming from them which distorts the geometric center.  Most are in the the wrong place.  None of them are ID'd with the silkscreen.  It takes seconds to drop proper fids on a layout that are marked, have perfect geometry, and are optimized to get the best geometric corrections.  Simple.  All the talk about scanning the PCB and looking at pad with paste, etc is senseless.  The machine I use is ANCIENT and with 3 well placed fiducials can nail .4mm and 0201 every single time without fail.  A modern vision system, even a simple one, can outperform it.  You are solving a problem that does not exist.  I did have to use some old boards where only vias and other holes were available, and it was a lot worse.  It worked well enough to get through the batch, but I simply added real fids on the next run and have not had a single alignment issue even with the fine pitch stuff.

Like I said earlier - placing the part is FAR easier than picking it up in the first place.  Feeders are the bigger challenge. The idea of using a camera to correct for poor part presentation on a feeder is not always going to work either.
A SOD523 diode is black on glossy black plastic tape with a tiny pickup area.  A camera may struggle with figuring that one out, at best it would be slow and at worse it would fail to pick-up correctly.  The most proper long term solution is to have a precision indexing feeder IMHO - maybe use the camera during setup to get an offset.

My ideas on how to design a machine have changed substantially after I got a machine, repaired it and started using it for real work on fine pitch PCB's.  I have a far more clear understanding of the challenge because I have met the challenge.  If I designed a PnP machine a year ago, I doubt it would be very good, if I designed it today - it would be far better and take a lot less time.  I suspect I would mimic a lot of how my own Quad machine is setup but with modern motion control and vision - making it a much simpler machine.  The side scanner is the best feature - it uses a laser/line scanner to image the side of the part while rotating to get it's orientation while in motion.  It is very reliable and can be used for nearly all parts.  Every single part is vision aligned, but without stopping. There is also an up facing camera for very fine pitch BGA's but I rarely use it in practice since the spin alignment works so well.  Keep in mind this is a decades old machine and it works quite well in that regard.  A modern 'clone' of a Quad IV-C would be a fantastic starter machine and the engineering effort would be far, far less than going from scratch and learning the dirty details of every single sub-system.


What does not work is if the feeders over/underfeed and the nozzle grabs the edge of the part. It will be picked up at an oblique angle and the alignment will fail. The part has to be in a predictable location to be picked up correctly - after that things are easy and very predictable.

If you make a $10k machine that mis-picks and requires constant supervision and possibly re-work - it will be more expensive than a very reliable $20k machine to even a small business like mine.  Most business owners know the value of time and will be sensitive to that.  Another thing that takes a lot of labor money is machine setup.  To be viable - it really needs to be easy to setup and intuitive to operate.  This includes recovering from mistakes, mis-picks, etc.  The long discussion about precision and advanced imaging says nothing at all about what it will be like to setup and operate the machine when a deadline is looming.  I will maintain that the placement effort is easy and should not be the initial focus of any design effort.

Ask yourself what are the problems you are trying to solve:

Cost?
Fine pitch placements?
FAST setup/changover?
Reliability?
Size?
Component mix?

Hahaha.  Okay, I just deleted "via pads" from the business plan!  Besides, the more we discussed this issue, the more clear it became we don't really need them anyway.

About the case of "black component on black tape" (or "white component on white tape").  How do seriously professional feeders that can absolutely, positively move the tape EXACTLY the appropriate distance every time... make sure they can pick up the FIRST of those components after the reel is loaded (to get in sync)?

That laser component alignment.  I assume that's doing the same job as those "jaws" in the LE40V videos that I posted links to a while back, correct?

I assume that laser alignment means the part gets rotated until the reflection off the side of the component comes back into the open slit (in to a photodiode) under the laser illuminated slit just above... or something like that.  If not, explain how that works.

Another minor detail that is probably irrelevant.  Those "jaws" that do component alignment also center the component on the nozzle, but I assume the laser setup doesn't do anything mechanical except rotate the nozzle and component to align the edges.  Correct?

When you say "precision indexing feeder", does that basically come down to the ability to rotate the sprocket that pulls the tape by very precise rotational increments (in other words, a high-count encoder (or stepper) and ways to assure backlash and such isn't happening?

ABSOLUTELY YES to the notion that a $20K machine that works, and works reliably, precisely and intuitively is infinitely better than a $10K machine that isn't reliable, that isn't precise, that isn't intuitive, or combinations of these.  OTOH, if we can get all that in a $10K (or much more likely $15K) machine (including feeders), then that's fine with me.  But I very much resist going over $20K in any event.  If the selling price goes above $20K, I say "we failed" (just as surely as if the price was $10K but had problems).

I do worry a bit about your next comments.  You make it sound like we're making a machine that fully competes on all bases with $100K machines (or at least $40K machines like the ddmnovastar LE40V), including on the basis of speed.  I don't think we are likely to be able to do that.  HOWEVER, while I believe we won't match their placement speed, we may be able to beat the speed, efficiency and convenience of setup for a job, and switching from job to job.  So "all things considered" we might end up faster... and doing so is a very good goal to set for ourselves, I think.

I'm not saying we couldn't beat their pick-and-place speed.  We could.  I've done very high-performance servo systems with pancake motors, which are totally awesome motors (virtually zero inductance and no cogging so tiny increments of rotation are possible and thus huge dynamic range of practical speeds), and we could knock their socks off speed wise... but then our machine will not be in the same price niche.  As I said elsewhere, I pretty much NEVER want to compete head to head with anyone... ever.  I want to be the only viable player in our niche.

Requirements important to me:

#1:  mandatory:  reliably places tiny (<= 0201) and fine-pitch (<= 0.50mm) components.
#2:  mandatory:  price is $10K to $20K with a reasonable set of feeders.
#3:  mandatory:  reliable and repeatable for every machine shipped.
#4:  important:    fast, reliable, convenient job setup and change.
#5:  convenient:  unlimited component mix.
#6:  no biggie:     fast part placement.
#7:  no biggie:     small machine size.
#8:

Actually, I don't really know what you meant by "component mix".  Please explain your exact meaning.

 
The following users thanked this post: Bud

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #90 on: May 10, 2016, 08:05:17 pm »
The most proper long term solution is to have a precision indexing feeder IMHO - maybe use the camera during setup to get an offset.

What you can do pretty much "for free" is look for consistent offsets during vision and use this to home in on the optimum pick posiiton.

Quote
My ideas on how to design a machine have changed substantially after I got a machine, repaired it and started using it for real work on fine pitch PCB's. I have a far more clear understanding of the challenge because I have met the challenge.

Couldn't agree more.  Anyone trying  to design a pick & place who hasn't got  experience using will never make a good job of it.  It's one of those problems where the basic principles are very simple, but it's all in a huge number of little details.

That's why here in this forum, because the practical experience with actually running a PCB assembly line with pick-and-place is helping me a lot.  Nonetheless, I've creating machines, devices and processes that never existed before and are much more complex than a pick-and-place machine, so nobody in the universe had any experience before I designed and implemented the machine or device, and the results were more than satisfactory.  So I'm not quite as pessimistic as you, especially with advice and help with people who have been through the whole process (multiple times).  Nonetheless, I'm not saying it is easy, and I'm not saying the absolute first item built won't be tested, tweaked, modified and tested more before anyone even considers "production".

But maybe we'll support a couple alpha and beta testers...     |O     :box:     :-DD

And you'll be more than welcome to say "told you so"... if it comes to that.
 

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #91 on: May 10, 2016, 08:22:35 pm »
The idea of moving the PCB in x and/or y instead of the "nozzle head" is interesting. 
How about moving the nozzle head AND the pcb both in x and y direction?  Crazy? Expensive? Bear with me.

If you want a movement accuracy (step) of lets say 0,01mm this is going to cost you big time if you have larges axis of 600mm or so or will be slooooooooooow (gearbox).  But if the PCB for example only has to move 10mm in X or Y then a 0,01mm accuracy is easy and cheap with a simple stepper motor with gearbox.  So the large movements you do cheap and reasonable accurate like 0.10 mm or so and the last correction is the pcb table with 0.01mm.

You could even go so far to use what in cnc land is called a 4th axis and that is to rotate the PCB slightly for extremely small corrections, therefore making the nozzle-head rotational stepper cheaper / lighter.

Just an out of the box thought, we are brainstorming.  :)

I agree with all this, but as with several issues, "the devil is in the details" (of the design, mostly).

One really nice thing about moving the PCB around in x,y is... the PCB has little mass.  Moving a PCB around in x,y doesn't require large forces (even to move fairly quickly).  However, as I mentioned elsewhere, the notion of moving the PCB around makes me a bit nervous.  Yes, yes, I know.  I've seen the videos of those FTL "component shooters" on youtube, and the PCB is moving around like crazy.  And obviously they are reliable.  So this is one of those uncomfortable cases where "others prove this works reliably", but my gut won't stop raising the "warning flag".  For example, maybe they have air bearings or something to prevent vibration.  True, in principle, vibration won't matter either, because the solder paste the components are sitting on is viscous and will absorb jitter and vibrations.  So my mind says "yeah, it is proven to work", but my gut (from experience) says... this may be a trap!

And as you say, in this scheme (assuming the vision techniques are applied), the x,y mechanics that drive the "nozzle head" + "nozzle camera" around don't need to be precise, just smooth and stable.

This is worth considering further... with care.  I'm not convinced, and I'm not unconvinced... yet.  But we'd have to become convinced that total cost and complexity is not increased, which seems unlikely.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 08:24:51 pm by bootstrap »
 

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #92 on: May 10, 2016, 08:27:35 pm »
Just as an educated guess - I would not expect that approach to be lower cost when compared to a well designed motion system.

That's my educated guess too.  But given the fact the larger moving x,y stage doesn't need to be as precise, I can't yet convincingly prove to myself that approach is worse.  But I remain fairly confident my educated guess (and yours) is correct.
 

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #93 on: May 10, 2016, 08:36:02 pm »
I agree with Mike and Carlos. Don't go all-in on your first machine.  At least, visit an assembly shop, talk with the guys loading it, ask yourself why the engineers of this industry aren't doing it your way, ask yourself why you think your way is better and so on.

One often overlooked point and a simple red flag to readers in DIY CNC machines projects, whatever they are, is the lack of interest for metrology.  Dudes are always going to build machines precise to 0.01mm but have never heard of a dial indicator or ignore the price of a long-enough reference plane or use an out-of-class measurement device or have no clue how awful it is to align 3 axis with each other, let-alone 5.

I know where you're coming from.  Believe me, I would be more skeptical that the skeptics posting in this topic if 99.99% of the population tried this project.  However, it appears to me that at least two of us have decades of experience with super-precise mechanical systems, have been through the machine design ringer several times, beaten to pulp repeatedly, and learned a few lessons (and better intuition) during our ordeals.  I believe that raises our chances dramatically.

It better, otherwise we're toast!

Of course, you have no way to know for sure whether I'm totally full of crap or not, and I don't know whether you know anything concrete about rx8pilot or "other optimists" who posted in this topic either.  So from your perspective, maybe you should be even more skeptical than you already are!  Hmmm.  Which side am I on here?   :scared:
« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 09:05:17 pm by bootstrap »
 

Offline mrpackethead

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2845
  • Country: nz
  • D Size Cell
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #94 on: May 10, 2016, 08:37:09 pm »
Quote
Hahaha.  Okay, I just deleted "via pads" from the business plan!  Besides, the more we discussed this issue, the more clear it became we don't really need them anyway.

in your business plan have you included hiring some folks who wont' scare your customers?
On a quest to find increasingly complicated ways to blink things
 

Offline rx8pilot

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3644
  • Country: us
  • If you want more money, be more valuable.
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #95 on: May 10, 2016, 08:40:57 pm »

About the case of "black component on black tape" (or "white component on white tape").  How do seriously professional feeders that can absolutely, positively move the tape EXACTLY the appropriate distance every time... make sure they can pick up the FIRST of those components after the reel is loaded (to get in sync)?

On my machine, there are two options. When you load the tape, you can visually verify the part is aligned with a fixed index mark. That works well for bigger parts like 0805 and up. You can also set a camera assisted coordinate offset to compensate for any strangeness in the feeder. After that, you are counting on it's ability to move the tape very repeatable step 2mm, 4mm, 8mm, 12mm, etc. Every time you send the head back to that feeder - the next part should be exactly where the previous one was before. It's all about repeat-ability with various tapes. There are thick paper tapes and very thin plastic tapes. On the 'precision' feeders, the mechanical slot keeps some lateral pressure on the tape to prevent 'gate weave' and the indexing system is substantially more precise - brushless servo system instead of a DC motor and a 4 count encoder. Those feeders nearly eliminate mis-picks entirely - but they are much more expensive.


That laser component alignment.  I assume that's doing the same job as those "jaws" in the LE40V videos that I posted links to a while back, correct?

I assume that laser alignment means the part gets rotated until the reflection off the side of the component comes back into the open slit (in to a photodiode) under the laser illuminated slit just above... or something like that.  If not, explain how that works.

The laser is on one side of the head and the line camera on the other. What it is looking at is the shadow of the part - the outer perimeter. When a nozzle is loaded, it uses this system to determine the nozzle length to verify it loaded properly. It can also tell what nozzle in loaded by looking at the profile. When it picks a part - it knows the orientation roughly, but this system allows it to detect X,Y,T errors related to the pickup. As the part rotates, it can see it getting wider/narrower making it easy to figure out when it is square. Also, that process delivers X/Y dimensions that are compared to the expected part so it will stop if it picks up something the wrong size or shape. It does all of this while it is moving to the place location and integrates the errors with the placement data and the X,Y, Skew data derived from the fiducials. DDM uses a mechanical squaring mechanism which is totally different and I doubt it is as accurate. I cannot say for sure because I have never used it though.

Actually, I don't really know what you meant by "component mix".  Please explain your exact meaning.[/font]

The component mix is the variety you have to place. I have to do a big inductor, followed by .4mm QFN, followed by SOIC's in tubes, 44pin QFP's, 10mm CAN's, 0402 passives, etc. Usually have at least 80 unique parts loaded at any given moment - sometimes 100+. Project mix would be needing to switch to different PCB's with different parts - that is where there is commonly a major time penalty. Loading feeders, figuring out where they are, verifying part orientation, etc. The reason I keep a lot of part loaded in the machine is because it allows me to switch boards by just calling up a new program and maybe 1-2 feeders change. Most of the low cost machines cannot hold anywhere near that many parts so every switch over is a much bigger chore.
Factory400 - the worlds smallest factory. https://www.youtube.com/c/Factory400
 

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #96 on: May 10, 2016, 08:46:02 pm »
Quote
Hahaha.  Okay, I just deleted "via pads" from the business plan!  Besides, the more we discussed this issue, the more clear it became we don't really need them anyway.

in your business plan have you included hiring some folks who wont' scare your customers?

Nope.  No need.  Our satisfied customers [and website] are our representatives and salespeople.

Put up a website.  Post a slew of cool videos on youtube showing the machine in action.  Send a few demo units out.  Get a few positive reviews.  Post them and pass them around the internet.  Place notices in forums like this (and not very much like this) that link and point to the above.

Then... accept whatever happens, whether that's zero or terminal back-order syndrome.  I don't consider this a huge business potential, only modest.  The biz/company has to be even simpler and more streamlined than the machine!

Not sure what rx8pilot has in mind as far as the biz, but my sights are quite modest.  Maybe 25 units the first year, 50 the second, 100 the third, and never much more than 100~200 per year.  That's no empire, and given the lower price, that's not big honking corporation (which is a huge positive in my mind).  Nonetheless, 100 units * $10K profit each ($1M per year) isn't chump change either (for two people, plus maybe a couple inexpensive helpers).

OTOH, we are WAY too early to be thinking seriously about this!

PS:  My annoying personality may not be too terrible in the role of temporary tech support (for short term), since my main failure is getting right to the point and placing my entire focus on the technical issues... and getting them right.  For people who just want to get their damn machine going the way they want, maybe my apparently crappy social skills are a perfect match.  Or maybe not.  In which case I'll go hide and work, which is my plan anyway.  Let happy customers show their appreciation by helping newbies and fellow adopters with questions and problems.  My goal is... they don't need us after they receive the machine.

Oh, plus the way I think, we'll probably end up trading someone who really wants but can't afford even $20K a "free machine" in exchange for handling all our support.  To "pay with product" is a great approach in my experience.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 08:59:40 pm by bootstrap »
 

Offline rx8pilot

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3644
  • Country: us
  • If you want more money, be more valuable.
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #97 on: May 10, 2016, 09:01:47 pm »
Nonetheless, 100 units * $10K profit each ($1M per year) isn't chump change either (for two people, plus maybe a couple inexpensive helpers).

I though this was a $10k machine? I can't see it as a big business either so not really motivated to go anywhere with it. If it turned out to be a big business for whatever weird reason - it would be immediately copied by 5 companies in China for a lot less $ and the low-cost seeking customers we are catering to would jump ship faster than you can say 'Fine Pitch Placement'. If there was $10k gross profit in each machine, a huge amount of that would be eaten by trade shows, marketing, service/support, supply chain problems, inventory tracking, build-out of the new building needed, and all the other expenses that are part of modern business. The bigger the profits, the bigger the challenge to keep competitors away - which costs more money. Not trying to be negative, just not seeing a reason to jump off a cliff with hopes the Pick and Place machine would somehow create a parachute.

End of business plan.  :-DD

Factory400 - the worlds smallest factory. https://www.youtube.com/c/Factory400
 

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #98 on: May 10, 2016, 09:22:43 pm »

About the case of "black component on black tape" (or "white component on white tape").  How do seriously professional feeders that can absolutely, positively move the tape EXACTLY the appropriate distance every time... make sure they can pick up the FIRST of those components after the reel is loaded (to get in sync)?

On my machine, there are two options. When you load the tape, you can visually verify the part is aligned with a fixed index mark.  That works well for bigger parts like 0805 and up.  You can also set a camera assisted coordinate offset to compensate for any strangeness in the feeder.  After that, you are counting on it's ability to move the tape very repeatable step 2mm, 4mm, 8mm, 12mm, etc.  Every time you send the head back to that feeder - the next part should be exactly where the previous one was before.  It's all about repeat-ability with various tapes.  There are thick paper tapes and very thin plastic tapes.  On the 'precision' feeders, the mechanical slot keeps some lateral pressure on the tape to prevent 'gate weave' and the indexing system is substantially more precise - brushless servo system instead of a DC motor and a 4 count encoder.  Those feeders nearly eliminate mis-picks entirely - but they are much more expensive.

You are increasingly convincing me that checking the position of tiny components with the down-looking "nozzle camera" before moving to pick them up... is the safe and reliable way to go.  However, note that each time it finds the component with the camera, it detects (and remembers) the error.  After a few picks of a given tiny component the software should be able to tell whether it can continue without pre-checking with the camera, or needs to check every single time.  Frankly, my money is on "check every single time anyway" for all tiny components.  At the margins (perhaps 0805) it will become clear the mechanical precision is sufficient and camera checking is a total waste of time.

Quote
That laser component alignment.  I assume that's doing the same job as those "jaws" in the LE40V videos that I posted links to a while back, correct?

I assume that laser alignment means the part gets rotated until the reflection off the side of the component comes back into the open slit (in to a photodiode) under the laser illuminated slit just above... or something like that.  If not, explain how that works.

The laser is on one side of the head and the line camera on the other.  What it is looking at is the shadow of the part - the outer perimeter.  When a nozzle is loaded, it uses this system to determine the nozzle length to verify it loaded properly.  It can also tell what nozzle in loaded by looking at the profile.  When it picks a part - it knows the orientation roughly, but this system allows it to detect X,Y,T errors related to the pickup.  As the part rotates, it can see it getting wider/narrower making it easy to figure out when it is square.  Also, that process delivers X/Y dimensions that are compared to the expected part so it will stop if it picks up something the wrong size or shape.  It does all of this while it is moving to the place location and integrates the errors with the placement data and the X,Y, Skew data derived from the fiducials.  DDM uses a mechanical squaring mechanism which is totally different and I doubt it is as accurate.  I cannot say for sure because I have never used it though.

The old "Platos components" approach, eh?  Of course (yet again), when the up-looking "component camera" takes an image of the component on the nozzle, it can determine the rotation fairly accurately.  The resolution of this camera can be twice as good as the others, since it probably only needs to examine 2" square components, not 4" diameter.

Quote
Actually, I don't really know what you meant by "component mix".  Please explain your exact meaning.

The component mix is the variety you have to place.  I have to do a big inductor, followed by 0.4mm QFN, followed by SOIC's in tubes, 44pin QFP's, 10mm CAN's, 0402 passives, etc.  Usually have at least 80 unique parts loaded at any given moment - sometimes 100+.  Project mix would be needing to switch to different PCB's with different parts - that is where there is commonly a major time penalty.  Loading feeders, figuring out where they are, verifying part orientation, etc.  The reason I keep a lot of part loaded in the machine is because it allows me to switch boards by just calling up a new program and maybe 1-2 feeders change.  Most of the low cost machines cannot hold anywhere near that many parts so every switch over is a much bigger chore.

I hope there is no reason we can't have the machine place all of the first component (probably the smallest), then place all the next component (next to smallest), then so forth.  This has many advantages, which we can discuss later (here or by voice).
 

Offline bootstrapTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Country: us
Re: New Pick and Place design ideas
« Reply #99 on: May 10, 2016, 09:34:33 pm »
Nonetheless, 100 units * $10K profit each ($1M per year) isn't chump change either (for two people, plus maybe a couple inexpensive helpers).

I thought this was a $10k machine?  I can't see it as a big business either so not really motivated to go anywhere with it.  If it turned out to be a big business for whatever weird reason - it would be immediately copied by 5 companies in China for a lot less $ and the low-cost seeking customers we are catering to would jump ship faster than you can say 'Fine Pitch Placement'.  If there was $10k gross profit in each machine, a huge amount of that would be eaten by trade shows, marketing, service/support, supply chain problems, inventory tracking, build-out of the new building needed, and all the other expenses that are part of modern business.  The bigger the profits, the bigger the challenge to keep competitors away - which costs more money.  Not trying to be negative, just not seeing a reason to jump off a cliff with hopes the Pick and Place machine would somehow create a parachute.

End of business plan.  :-DD

The way I figure it, those are the numbers for a $20K machine.  But if we actually achieve a $10K target price, we'll sell twice as many, making the total profit the same in both cases.

Make sense?

This IS back of the envelope time, after all!

I know everything I say that is "unconventional" scares most people.  But I started a couple of the kind of unconventionally simple "mean, clean, minimalist machine" companies before that had a total of one owner-worker-employee plus one grunt-employee... and it worked great.  No physical store.  No physical factory.  No physical buildings at all.  All "work at home".  Assemble the PCBs and mechanics at home, but the mechanical parts were all subcontracted (and assembled and shipped from home).

What about China?  I thought that's where we'd have our machines made!  How can someone else in China make it any cheaper than us, when we have zero overhead?

If you want to waste your time going to trade shows and all that jazz... be my guest.  No need, at least not after the first year.  Either that, or we make our tech-slave guy who does our tech support in exchange for his free personal machine... also do any important trade shows (if any exist after the first year and word-of-mouth gets going).

Marketing budget == zero.  Free new product announcements... yes.  Free forum posts and comments... yes.

Buildings == zero.  Not even rent.  Work from home, dude!  Products made in China and drop-shipped like neoden4.

SCREW MODERN BUSINESS.  Be a futuristic business or die.

Oh, and most of that millions bucks profit per year is for your/our time!  Expenses?  Near zero.

Conventional business is INSANE.  Where do you think amazon would be today if they opened a conventional bookstore?  OUT OF BUSINESS.

Here is one less dramatic point that's nonetheless true.  The first n units you produce cost ZERO to market.  People find out via free product announcements in trade publications, articles, blogs, forums, web-sites and internet communication.  This is  what I call the "natural market size".

To attempt to double your "natural market size" in conventional ways, you must spend so much that ALL OR MORE THAN your extra "profits" earned are consumed by the expenses you incur to push your sales to double.  WHICH MEANS YOU GOT NOTHING OR LESS FOR THE EFFORT.  Yet, 99.99% of marketing geniuses will never learn this or know this.  And nobody tries anything unconventional, so they never find out!  That's how almost everything works on planet earth.  Humans are clueless, terrified pinheads!

Almost everyone wants to be "king of the world"... and almost all of them end up defeating themselves by chasing that absurd and almost always unrealistic goal.  KISS.  And KINS (keep it natural, stupid).

Thought I coulda, woulda, shoulda been a billionaire.  And now I'm destitute because I wasn't satisfied being a millionaire!

« Last Edit: May 11, 2016, 05:21:41 am by bootstrap »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf