Fall Technical Conference
October 17
2002
Launsby Consulting 2002
Robert Launsby





Co-author of three books on experimental
design
Co-developer of DOE Wisdom software
Trained several thousand folks in industry
on problem solving approaches
Article “Straight Talk on DFSS”, SSFM
8/2002
www.launsby.com

Download of examples using toys
Launsby Consulting 2002
Agenda



Model for change
“Super Simulation” of air bag
deployment system
Trebuchets, electromagnets, antacid
pills, catapults
Launsby Consulting 2002
Boston Survival Skills


Statement: Accents are wonderful, We
all have them (we just don’t know it)
South Boston (Kennedy accent)




Car, Harvard, Chelmsford, Factor, Shark
Data, Pizza, Cuba, peninsula
“Park the car in Harvard yard”
Tuna, tuner
Launsby Consulting 2002
Niccolo Machiavelli

“There is nothing more difficult to carry
out, nor more doubtful of success, nor
more dangerous to handle than to initiate a
new order of things. For the reformer has
enemies in all those who profit by the old
order, and only lukewarm defender by all
those who could profit by the new order.
This luke-warmness arises from the
incredulity of mankind who do no truly
believe in anything new until they have had
actual experience with it.”
Launsby Consulting 2002
Change

The application of simple statistical
tools to day-to-day activities
represents a huge change for many
businesses
Launsby Consulting 2002
Strategic Change Matrix
Right Thing
The world
changes
Done
Well
Stage 1
Done
Poorly
Continue
doing old
right thing
Deny new
reality
Stage 2
Folks need
practice!
Stage 4
Launsby Consulting 2002
Wrong Thing
Stage 3
Getting Folks Out of Stage
2 Into Stage 3


High contrast and confrontation
One approach


Air bag simulation using “Super Sim”
Student challenge (30 minutes)



Team exercise
Select best settings (25 trials max)
Define technology guide for each
response
Launsby Consulting 2002
Auto Air Bag System
Gas
weight
Type of
charge, amount
of charge
Launsby Consulting 2002
Orifice
diameter
Four factors
Auto Air Bag System (cont.)
Factor
Range
Orifice diameter 0.08 to 0.14
Gas weight
12.0 to 14.5
Prop. Type
23b, 35b
Prop. Weight
.85, 1.2
Launsby Consulting 2002
Auto Air Bag System (cont.)
Max Pressure
delivered
Time to
first
pressure
Launsby Consulting 2002
Time to 90
% max.
Auto Air Bag System (cont.)
8
9
10
110
120
130
Max Pressure
Time to 90 %
Goal: Nominal
values for all
three
responses
2
3
Time to First Pressure
Launsby Consulting 2002
Auto Air Bag System (cont.)
Response Surface**type(B)=23b,propwt(D
D
(
1
c
o 0.8
m
0.6
p
o 0.4
s
i 0.2
t
0
e12.8
)
13
13.2
0.14
0.1292
0.1184
13.6
0.1076
0.0968
13.80.086
orif
13.4
wt
Launsby Consulting 2002
Getting Folks Out of Stage
3 Into Stage 4





Trebuchet
 More complex DOE, PLS techniques
Tools are
Electromagnets
great for
 DOE, ANOVA, regression
starters, but
Antacid pills
don’t forget
 Variance reduction, simple DOE real
applications
Catapults
 Problem solving, control charts, MSA, simple
DOE
M&M’s for attributes MSA, C-charts
Launsby Consulting 2002
Trebuchet




Real Trebuchets were weapons of mass
destruction in 12th century
Used in TV show “Northern Exposure” to
launch piano
Today: Used to toss Yugo’s, pumpkins, etc,
great amount of info on internet
Interesting challenge for getting students
beyond simple Design of Experiments, PLS
Launsby Consulting 2002
Possible Trebuchet Factors
Potential factors of
interest
Number of weights
Pivot point of arm
Release arm position
Sling length
Release bar position
Launsby Consulting 2002
Possible
responses
Total distance
Height
Flight distance
Trebuchet (cont.)
Dependent Variable:
Number Runs(N):
Multiple
R:
Squared Multiple R:
Adjusted Squared
Multiple R:
Standard Error of
Estimate:
Variable
Constant
Rel Bar
S Length
AB
Distance
8
0.998703
0.997408
0.995463
2.89396
Coefficient Std Error 95% CI
156.875
-27.125
-12.375
-26.875
1.02317
1.02317
1.02317
1.02317
± 2.84133
± 2.84133
± 2.84133
± 2.84133
Tolerance T
1
1
1
P(2 Tail)
153.323
-26.511
-12.095
-26.266
Model looks good!
Launsby Consulting 2002
0
0
0
0
Trebuchet (cont.)
S
Contour Plot
3
100
2.4
L
e 1.8
n
1.2
g
t 0.6
h
0
140
Prediction is
165
2
Actual value from
trial was 194
Launsby Consulting 2002
120
180
160
3
4
Rel Bar
Distance
5
Trebuchet (cont.)


Eventually fit special cubic model to
obtain useful predictions for flight
distance with previous factor ranges
Note: you can download details from
my website
Launsby Consulting 2002
Electromagnets
Some possible
factors
Diameter of wire
Possible Responses
Number of turns
Gauss
Amount of
current
Type of core
Distance of gauss
meter from core
Launsby Consulting 2002
Distance from coil
to move compass
needle
Electromagnets (cont.)
Main Effects
40
30
f
i
e
l
d
20
s
t
r
10
0
green(-)
gold(+)
1.5(-) 3(+) 0(-)
1(+)
wire(A)
voltage(B) dist(C)
Factors
Launsby Consulting 2002
10(-) 20(+)
turns(D)
Electromagnets (cont.)
Contour Plot**w ire(A)=green,dist(C)=0.000
3
20
2.7
18
v
o 2.4
l
t
a
g 2.1
e
16
14
1.8
1.5
10
12
12
14
16
turns
field str
Launsby Consulting 2002
18
20
Antacid pills
Scatte r Plot
200
Factors:
Water temp,
amount of cola
t
i
m
e
Response:
100
Dissolve time
0
1(-)
1.5
w ate r(A)
Factors
2(+)
Experiment demonstrates interaction, nonlinearity, and variance reduction
Launsby Consulting 2002
Antacid pills (cont.)
Inte ractions
120
Interaction
tested to be
significant
100
80
t
i
m
e
60
40
20
acid(+)
acid(0)
acid(-)
0
1(-)
Launsby Consulting 2002
1.5
w ate r(A)
Factors
2(+)
Catapult




Possible factors: pull back angle, “pin on pole”,
hook position, cup position, stop position, ball
type, etc.
Possible responses: total distance, height,
flight distance.
Positives: simple linear model provides useful
predictions
Other uses: Control charts (older rubber band
will demonstrate shift in mean), problem solving
Launsby Consulting 2002
Catapult (cont.)
Main Effe cts
140
116
92
d
i
s
t
68
44
20
150(-)
186(+)
Angle (A)
Launsby Consulting 2002
-1(-)
1(+)
Band(B)
Factors
-1(-)
1(+)
Pe g(C)
Catapult (cont.)
Inte ractions
200
Band(+)
Pe g(+)
Pe g(+)
d
i
s
t
100
Pe g(-)
Pe g(-)
Band(-)
0
150(-)
186(+)
Angle (A)
Launsby Consulting 2002
150(-)
186(+)
Angle (A)
Factors
-1(-)
1(+)
Band(B)
Catapult (cont.)
Contour Plot**Peg(C)=-1.00000
1
120
100
0.6
80
B
a
n
d
0.2
60
-0.2
-0.6
-1
150
40
20
157.2
164.4
171.6
Angle
dist
Launsby Consulting 2002
178.8
186
Paper Helicopter

Numerous potential factors including






Wing length
Wing width
Number of weights
Type of weight
Paper weight
Body length
Launsby Consulting 2002
Paper Helicopter
Launsby Consulting 2002
Dependent Variable:
Number Runs(N):
Multiple R:
Squared Multiple R:
Adjusted Squared Multiple R:
Standard Error of Estimate:
Variable
Coefficient
Constant
1.65896
Wing Width(A)
0.186528
Wing Length(B)
0.420556
Weight(C)
-0.290972
Body Length(D)
-0.0811806
Paper(E)
-0.181181
AB
-0.00777778
AC
0.0419444
AD
-0.0390972
AE
-0.0203472
BC
-0.0827778
BD
-0.05625
BE
-0.04625
CD
0.0696528
CE
0.0709028
DE
-0.011875
Wing Length**2
0.0766667
Time
36
0.99464
0.989308
0.980304
0.0733144
Std Error P(2 Tail)
0.0399463
0
0.0145436
0
0.0157747
0
0.0145436
0
0.0131981
0
0.0131981
0
0.0157747
0.628
0.0145436
0.009
0.0131981
0.008
0.0131981
0.14
0.0157747
0
0.015873
0.002
0.015873
0.009
0.0131981
0
0.0131981
0
0.015873
0.464
0.0473242
0.122
Paper Helicopter
Response Surface**Wing Width(A)=2.40000,Weight(C)=1.40
1
D
(
T
i
m
e
)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2
1.8
1.6
Paper
1.4
1.2
1 5
Launsby Consulting 2002
5.8
6.6
7.4
8.2
Wing Length
9
M&M’s




Simple to use
Simple to define defect
Useful for attributes R&R study and Ccharts
You can sample (eat) some of the
product
Launsby Consulting 2002
Summary


Please visit my website to download
case studies and find listing of what
is required for each experiment
www.launsby.com
Launsby Consulting 2002