Slashdot Mirror
Remote-controlled Bolts and Screws
Winter writes "SMT Magazine has an article on intelligent fasteners (screws, bolts...) that can fasten themselves or by remote control.
Usage for this seems mainly to make sure normal people cannot change parts in their car themselves, and only allow for authorized parts and service.
Of course, a hacker might also have fun and disassemble the neighbours car."
I've been interested in these devices for a while now. As a design engineer, I don't see much how these new intelligent fasteners will differ much from today's dumb fasteners. Since they are mechanical fasteners, the joint strength considerations remain the same. All fasteners still have to transfer a force, and the concepts of tension, shear, and clamp load don't change with the addition of an embedded system. I suppose that any joint strength you can achieve with a traditional fastener, you can achieve with an intelligent fastener.
There will be differences, of course. On the plus side, they promise to provide additional design freedom. Tool access and assembly sequences often dictate the fastener locations as much as joint strength does. Now you can put a joint anywhere you want because of the built-in actuation, which can also eliminate some of the tolerance or orientation issues associated with assembly tools. Cross threading could be a thing of the past.
They also shouldn't present any packaging difficulties, despite their onboard electronics. These fasteners tap into a product's existing wiring and electronics. Digital commands take up far less space than a physical tool. I think that smart fasteners can attain much smaller sizes than conventional mechanical fasteners--in part because they overcome traditional spacing constraints and in part because smart materials will allow them to be smaller, perhaps even down to the nanotechnology scale. Cool stuff indeed.
As usual, the submitter is a sensationalist fucktard. The first thing the article does is describe several uses for these products It lists six different categores, including optimizing manufacturing assembly, and sensing impending problems. Yes, restricting access is one thing that they _will_ be used for. But it's not even close to the only thing.
The article goes into pretty significant detail about the operation of the fasteners. The site is the web presence of a manufacturing industry rag, so it's not just ad copy.
This is the kind of hardware that's taking the auto industry out of the industrial age. A couple of exerpts I thought were particularly tasty:
I just had to replace the headlamp assembly on my wife's Corsica. It was a pain in the ass. Assuming that the control codes for these fasteners was publicly available it would've taken just a few minutes.
Aside here: Manufacturers are required by law to release a certain amount of information about their vehicles, to allow third-party repair shops to get in. This isn't playing DVDs under Linux or any heavy geek esoterica, it's something that affects Joe Legislator, so they're going to see to it that it doesn't inconvenience them too much.)
Loud Pipes Save Lives
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Sometimes hackers just get way too much credit. We definitely need to educate people regarding the pitfalls of technology and the dangers of relying too much on security. However, it's erroneous, and dangerous, for us to portray the idea that some 'hacker' could simply sit at a street corner with a laptop and create havoc with all things that contain a chip. We need to raise awareness, but let's not create an irrational fear.
Sure, I suppose a 'hacker' could have fun and disassemble the neighbours car - after they pop the hood, hook up their laptop (likey using special hardware), and run the correct program (probably with little to no 'hacking' involved). Heck, while they were at it they might as well go the extra mile and hack the car's chip.
Give credit where credit is due, but let's not make 'hackers' more powerful than they really are.
Yeah, the only problem is that you HAVE to work on older cars more. Give me electronic fuel injection and computer-controlled coil pack ignition any day over a carburetor/coil/distributor setup. Carburetors are horrible; they are inefficient, cranky, troubleprone, difficult to adjust, etc. If you want to keep emissions down, you either put in a plumbing system from the late 70's that Rube Goldberg would weep over, or you go to computer control.
Coil-pack ignition is the best thing since sliced bread. Distributors were probably the most troublesome part of a car engine, and they're gone now.
I currently am driving my third car that I've bought new and taken to > 100K miles; none of them required ANY service, except one failed solenoid on our minivan when it was at 22K miles.
Taking a non-computerized car to > 100K miles without so much as pulling out a spark plug would be laughable. I had a couple of older cars (VW Beetle, Plymouth Horizon, 69 Newport) and they were all to varying degrees a pain in the ass, every day, especially in the winter when the temps hit 0F or less. My new cars, even with > 100K, start in 5 seconds on the coldest days.
So yeah, you can get a classic car and be able to work on it, or buy a newer car and not have to.
BTW, I'm convinced that the reason I have so little trouble with cars is that I drive them very lightly. I've known people who were crazy drivers (IMHO) that bought the same cars as I did, and I drove them for years with no problem, but they were in the shop all the time.
For instance, I've taken a manual transmission car to 218,000 miles on the original clutch (the body finally fell apart). My Taurus is at 105,000 with the original brakes (I've looked at them every 20K since 60K, they're still fine). I know people who burn out a set of brake pads every 15K driving the same roads I do.
I am sure that there are segments of the car driving population that still adhere to this.
;). If you have one of those cars, you're either a mechanic yourself (pro or hobby), or have way too much disposable income going to support a British car mechanic.
Oh yeah. Anyone with an older Little British Car (Triumph, Rover, MG, Austin Healey, etc) knows all about self-maintenance. Perhaps we know a bit too much.
Assuming the head of this thing has a whopping 1" radius from the center of the bolt, that's 360 lbs of force the fastner needs to apply. And the largest volume that this fastener will take up? 3.14 in^3? 6.28?
These screws will only be useful for detailing unless they can tap power magically from anywhere they want.
--<Mike>--