Talk:Microphone stand

From DDL Wiki

Revision as of 07:51, 5 October 2007

We thank the client for their kind words on our initial findings, including mentions of the "excellent executive summary" and the good descriptions of system function and customer needs. Additionally, we appreciate the constructive comments on some parts of our findings, and have revised our report accordingly.

• Excellent executive summary, although a little more detail on your findings and recommendations would help.
• Good description of customer needs. Is safety also an issue – pinch points?
• Good description of system function – can you also comment on the four bar linkage AB?
• In product use you mention that “in the event that the stand does not stay, the set knobs at the upper and lower joints can be tightened to fix the stand in a position.” Comment more on this. In what situations would the stand not stay in position? Are the knobs used to fix completely so that the stand is immovable, or only to provide sufficient friction to avoid movement without additional human forces?
• The parts list looks good – is the knurled knob one piece or an assembly? You may want to recheck some of your manufacturing processes – washers are likely stamped, rather than cast, although it’s fine for standard parts to be listed as “purchase”. Threaded rods are similarly typically extruded and threaded, rather than cast.

The knurled knob was found to be a sub-assembly consisting of an external plastic injection molded part and an internal steel extruded part. Additionally, the manufacturing processes for small parts were re-assessed, and they were found mostly to be produced through stamping. The component list in the report has been updated to include these changes.

• Are the lower bars bent only to distinguish from upper bars? If this is the only purpose, it may be possible to reduce costs by avoiding this operation.
• Interesting LCA – we agree that the impact is not too high for this product. A sector including “stamped steel parts” might be a better estimate than “iron and steel mills”.
• Interesting FMEA – you are suggesting that testing is performed on the springs to anticipate fatigue failure?

In this microphone stand design, the tension in the springs creates the main counter-moment to support the weight of the microphone, thus making the springs an integral factor in the overall rigidity of the stand. If the springs were to deform or fracture, even though there is only a slight change of this occurring due to the inclusion of design controls for the spring parameters, the stand would no longer be able to maintain its positional rigidity and may harm the user. Therefore, it is suggested that there be additional testing in order to prevent spring failure.

• In your static analysis, we had some difficulty following: M2 is the moment around point A? This moment should be the component of kx perpendicular to the moment arm at the end of the spring minus the component of kx perpendicular to the moment arm at point B plus the moment caused by the microphone weight. Can you explain where the FA-FB = kx equation comes from? Also what is x_max? The maximum length of the spring under what condition? Labeling all forces and dimensions in the diagrams may help.
• The conclusions of the numerical analysis are reasonable; however, providing more precise equations to understand the statics would be helpful in supporting a redesign.