89 Replies Latest reply on Sep 22, 2017 3:19 PM by Alin Vargatu

# The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Hello SOLIDWORKS Power-Users and welcome to the 10th WPUC!

Other than having fun solving riddles, the goal of this week's WPUC is the same as always: facilitate through brainstorming the finding of new techniques for the benefit of the SOLIDWORKS Community.

Hopefully we will:

1. Identify areas where SOLIDWORKS' functionality needs enhancements
2. Design workarounds to overcome the current lack of functionality
3. Submit new ERs or promote existing ERs that are relevant to this WPUC topic.

The story is well know by all of us. A description of the challenge in video format can be found here: 10th SOLIDWORKS Weekly Power User Challenge: Measuring Carafe - YouTube

Snow White needs our help in taking better care of the seven dwarfs. Apparently they are getting too much wine at dinner, so she needs measurement lines inscribed on the wine carafe.

The dwarfs have modeled the carafe using SOLIDWORKS 2015, so if you have the 2015, 2016, 2017 or 2018 versions, you could help them.

This week you could win up to 6,000 points, as follows:

1. For eternal glory and 1000 points, be the first to estimate the volume of wine this carafe could hold. Provide the result in US fluid ounces, 3 decimal places, lower accuracy level.

2. For a bit more glory and 2000 points, be the first to place the measuring lines correctly. Please use 3 decimal places for both volume (US fluid ounces) and dimensions (inch). The height of each line is controlled by a global variable, as explained in the video.

3. For maximum glory and 3000 points, be the first to demonstrate that the method you used, in placing the measuring lines correctly, is the most efficient one. You can describe your workflow in writing and/or by recording a video.

Because the level of difficulty is lower in this challenge, I would ask the VAR and SOLIDWORKS employees to not submit solutions until Wednesday, the 13th of September at noon.

We accept submissions until Friday, the 15th of September, at noon, EDT.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Trying to reach into the screen but it goes black, just....., before I reach the Carafe handle - or maybe uploading it would be better then I can download it...

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Alin Vargatu Looks like the file may be missing...

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Brandon Graham wrote:

Alin Vargatu Looks like the file may be missing...

Sorry, I am still writing. It will be available in a minute.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Take your time Alin - we just pickin on ya...

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

John Stoltzfus wrote:

Take your time Alin - we just pickin on ya...

Done. All yours.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

For question #1. 66.627 US fluid ounces?

I cut off the top that was not level because it would not hold wine.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Question #1. 66.589US fluid ounces

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Andreas Rhomberg wrote:

Question #1. 66.589US fluid ounces

Andreas Rhomberg , what version of SW you used? What SP?

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

2017 SP04 with the Hotfix !

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

1) 66.629 fl. oz. However, with surface tension it could actually hold a little more. I want bonus points for that. ;-)

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Scott Stuart wrote:

1) 66.629 fl. oz. However, with surface tension it could actually hold a little more. I want bonus points for that. ;-)

How much more? We are talking Cabernet Sauvignon, Royal Evil Queen Reserve, 1457.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I was thinking the surface tension would definitely allow it to hold more, but I haven't a clue how to calculate this. Brings me back memories from middle school putting drops of water on a penny.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Bonus points only "If" the Wine Tastes really good

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Can you really drink a bottle of wine from 1457?

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Interesting. I went back and changed my max fill point to the outer edge of the spout since it looks a tiny bit higher than the inner edge, and I get a lower volume (66.627, same as Brandon Graham). So then I measured the inner and outer points and delta Y = 0.00000000. Weird.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

only six Lines possible, since the total Volume is less then 70 oz

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Do you want me to upload the file?

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Andreas Rhomberg wrote:

Do you want me to upload the file?

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

It gets better Glass by Glass.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Hello Alin Vargatu

and welcome back

assuming that the handle is full of liquid "showing only the liquid"the volume is 66.589 US fluid ounces

taking into consideration that the top of the handle is going to be empty "some air is trapped in there" the volume would go down to 66.582 US fluid ounces

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Q2

1.2198in

2.00665in

2.7449in

3.5288in

4.5004in

6.2241in

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Q2

1.2198in

2.00665in

2.7449in

3.5288in

4.5004in

6.2241in

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Sure
Here you are

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Q3
I know that it's not an elegant solution, it takes lots of manual work,

I'm interested to see a better solution using macro or whatever to do the trial and error I did manually

https://youtu.be/QsuYe0bnV_I

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Hello Everyone,

Here is a solution using excel solver. Not the same model but the same problem. Thought I would provide a link to Wayne Matus solution at wlmservices.

Good learing tool for excel and SW interaction

Elmar

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Thanks Elmar for sharing this,
yeah looks like this should be the "Best solution"
I found this demonstration video for the same file you shared
Using the Excel Solver and SolidWorks API to Solve Engineering Problems - YouTube

although my mind could not chew it all yet

What I could figure out after a little bit of research I understand and can use Excel solver now which is good

I decided to cheat, or maybe take a shortcut, which did not work "yet"
I decided to use a design table for this operation
I made another configuration deleted all the bodies but one (because I can only access the volume for the whole file "SW-Volume") tried different ways to access it in the design table could do this finally by using a configuration specific custom property but then Excel sees this cell as a fixed value so it did not work  (although when I hover over it I see the expression "SW-Volume@@Level1@Magic Elixir Carafe-.SLDPRT")

Here is what excel says

so I guess I'm going back to the API route

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I considered this, but it would be a pretty easy thing to fill in with more wine by tilting it, and probably inconsistent if you were assuming it did not fill completely.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

@
pretty easy to fill in, I agree,
"inconsistent if you were assuming it did not fill completely"
I'm making a reasonable assumption "from my point of view"  that you are filling it from the top while it's sitting up right so the air will not be able to escape as soon as the fluid touches the glass

and in theory, this amount of air "mass" will be fixed but as the fluid level goes higher this air volume will get smaller "due to the higher pressure"  but the 1.316in of wine is not enough "from my point of view" to cause significant volume change.
by the way, other members have suggested that the surface tension will affect the volume which I agree with but I can't figure it's effect at least easily "yea I'm a bit lazy"

Anyways if you still don't agree with me stick with the first reply

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

If I tip the carafe back 4.05 degrees I can get a little more wine in there. New answer for #1 is 66.745 fl. oz.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I made life simple (because I AM an engineer!) and assumed the handle is solid, so contains no wine. Also makes it easier to wash the carafe later!  I also set the top fill line at 10.75", again for practical reasons that you would never fill it to the brim. (Red wine on a white table cloth = very unhappy wife!) That gives me maximum volume of 65.854.

I then used offset surfaces to create 8 solid bodies (one for each of the fill-line sections). And measured the cumulative volumes.

I used Excel (yes I are an engineer!) to do the math. First I calculated a "volume per vertical inch" for each body. Then decided if the fill line needed to move up or down to get the desired volume to decide if I was subtracting from the current body or adding from the body above.

I saved a copy (-2) of the part, then added (or subtracted) that number in the Equation editor. Then remeasured the volumes. Added these numbers to the spreadsheet.

Also, because the carafe holds less than 70, I edited the top label to make it 65 (I already had the body so why not use it?)

My original volumes, new dimensions and new volumes:

10      7.506 oz    1.201"      9.781oz

20      19.911 oz    2.007"    20.005 oz

30    33.372 oz    2.749"    30.055 oz

40    45.126 oz    3.563"    40.438 oz

50    53.658 oz    4.570"    50.430 oz

60    58.900 oz    6.377'    60.213 oz

65    61.814 oz    9.958"    65.113 oz

I could repeat the above process to get closer dimensions but, as they say, "Good enough for government work".

Files in SW2017 SP4.1

One other practical consideration is that the lines are 0.040" thick, so the vertical dimensions should be to the nearest 0.040".

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

As a follow-up, I redid this following the rules. (Liquid in the handle and max fill to lowest point in spout.)

Max volume is 66.557 oz. (at 10.853")

I used my same spreadsheet technique to get the changed dimensions. I am assuming a linear relationship between vertical distance and volume change, but the carafe is tapered, so my "volume per inch" (in each body section) is only approximate.

I then did a second calculation that used the actual volume change for each body section to get a better "volume per inch" and did a second adjustment to the equations. So my final volumes are pretty close to desired. The attached part has different configurations to track changes.

My original volumes, final dimensions and final volumes:

10      7.506 oz    1.220"      10.003 oz

20      19.911 oz    2.007"    20.007 oz

30    33.374 oz    2.745"    30.002 oz

40    45.254 oz    3.532"    40.032 oz

50    53.843 oz    4.513"    50.101 oz

60    59.160 oz    6.228'    60.006 oz

65    62.148 oz    9.183"    65.033 oz

PS I noticed that the dimensions for the label lines were to either the bottom of the sketch block, or the middle, so I made them all to the middle.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I redid this to avoid using Excel to do iterative calculations.

First I did a split line at 1" increments so that I could create a sketch of height vs. volume. I added a spline curve through those points. I then added dimensions of the vertical height at the desired volumes (10 to 65).

The I dd another configuration and modified the equation values to those new dimensions. Suppressed the first set of split lines and did a new set. Then measured the volumes.

My original volumes, final dimensions and final volumes:

10      7.506 oz    1.216"      9.956 oz

20      19.911 oz    2.007"    20.0057 oz

30    33.374 oz    2.746"    30.015 oz

40    45.254 oz    3.528"    39.984 oz

50    53.843 oz    4.499"    49.981 oz

60    59.160 oz    6.224"    59.992 oz

65    62.148 oz    9.150"    64.996 oz

MAX 66.623 oz  10.583"

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Here are my findings:

1. Volume = 66.674 US fluid ounces

10 oz. : 1.220"

20 oz. : 2.007"

30 oz. : 2.745"

40 oz. : 3.529"

50 oz. : 4.501"

60 oz. : 6.226"

70 oz. : Not possible

Method I used: (Refer my attached model "mf_20170910_Magic Elixir Carafe" SW2017)

1. Extracted internal surfaces by "Surface Offset=0"
2. Trim that surface at the lowest point of the spout.
3. cap the surface by "Surface Fill" and at the same time knit and made a solid body.
4. Got the answer maximum Volume = 66.674 US fluid ounces
5. Made a cut extrude feature (= H vs V table value finder) to find volumes at different heights by utilizing the above (#3) created body. Entered the values in a table
6. Made a "Curve Through XYZ Points..." By using the above (#5) table values (= V vs. H graph)
7. In the sketch "V vs. H graph" graduated the volume axis 10, 20, 30.... and found their corresponding heights as follows.

9. Using the method @#5, could verify the volumes.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

With these verifying results, I could parametrically smoothen the curve/graph further especially at the 10,20,30… areas; which will produce much more accurate results. I’m not going to do it here since I just wanted to share my basic method of tackling this challenge.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Hmmm..... There is a air trap in the handle.  If its's filled while standing on a table (Horizontal), the volume will be 66.668 US fluid ounces

If it's tilted to fill to the maximum, the max volume will be 66.696 US fluid ounces

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Hi.

The first part was to get max fluid volume(orange juice).

Internal surfaces offset by 0 and cup top to get solid body. Max volume that i got is 66.555

In the next step i have createt a cut plane and volume sensor then run some design studies to get heights coresponding to given volumes and noted them down.

At last i have edited split sketch to adjust scale on the carafe.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I was golfing on Friday, so I'll have to wait to look at this when I get home tonight (can't hit YouTube here).

Pretty funny though, I already have something similar in my slugme presentation.

Hopefully this might encourage the fine folks at SOLIDWORKS to address SPR#588882

(This is still an issue in 2018 Beta 3)

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Alin,

When I compare the max volume numbers from 4 of us, we all have the same vertical dimensions (10.853"), but our volumes are not identical. (66.556, 66.557,66.589 & 66.674).

I know in the certification tests there is a tolerance for the answers (I can't remember the exact number).

Which raises the question: To how many decimals can we rely on the Mass Properties results?

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Bill Toft wrote:

Alin,

When I compare the max volume numbers from 4 of us, we all have the same vertical dimensions (10.853"), but our volumes are not identical. (66.556, 66.557,66.589 & 66.674).

I know in the certification tests there is a tolerance for the answers (I can't remember the exact number).

Which raises the question: To how many decimals can we rely on the Mass Properties results?

I agree, this is really spooky! Maybe the Evil Queen did something here.

For example, using SW 2017 SP4.1, on my machine the Max volume is 66.624oz (see attached0.

Using SW2017 SP5.0, the Max volume is 66.629oz (see attached).

Both measurements were taken with a  Low Accuracy setting.

So now I have a bit of trouble judging the results. I will contact all of you to ask for what version of SW you used.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

1-JS7W9Y wrote:

Bill Toft wrote:

Alin,

When I compare the max volume numbers from 4 of us, we all have the same vertical dimensions (10.853"), but our volumes are not identical. (66.556, 66.557,66.589 & 66.674).

I know in the certification tests there is a tolerance for the answers (I can't remember the exact number).

Which raises the question: To how many decimals can we rely on the Mass Properties results?

I agree, this is really spooky! Maybe the Evil Queen did something here.

For example, using SW 2017 SP4.1, on my machine the Max volume is 66.624oz (see attached0.

Using SW2017 SP5.0, the Max volume is 66.629oz (see attached).

Both measurements were taken with a Low Accuracy setting.

So now I have a bit of trouble judging the results. I will contact all of you to ask for what version of SW you used.

And even crazier is that if I open the 2015 file in 2017 SP4.1, and recreate the intersect feature, the volume gets calculated as 66.645oz.

Looks like the level is the only thing that is constant here: 10.853".

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

OK, this one is extremely frustrating!

1st of all, I want to point out that I did not look at any of the responses here before I posted this.

I have all the volumes, that is not the hard part.  What I was trying to do was parametrically link the ounce notes to the volume at each level, so that you can just change the height of the line and it would update the volume note.  This means that you need to have the volume calculation for all levels available in 1 configuration.....this is the challenging part.

But I am finding that this is really hard.

Things that I have tried:

1) It turns out that you can't use the volume of a specific body in a calculation, it is all or nothing for that configuration (at least, I can't figure out how to do it).  You can create a configuration that only has that body in it, but that causes other problems (see below).

2) If you link the Volume to a global variable, you can't use volumes from other configurations (sort of...see below).  It is current configuration only.

3) Using custom properties:  If I only use custom properties (not configuration specific), I can link a property to each volume of each configuration (then I can link each property to a global variable if I want).  The problem comes when I have to rebuild the part.  I have to rebuild each configuration every single time.  With Solidworks 2015, this isn't so easy.  An easy hack for SW 2015 is to drag the freeze bar up, then down again (which forces a rebuild of all configurations).  This whole constant rebuilding of configurations is very time consuming and frustrating!  And it still doesn't work as expected.  I can link a property to each configured volume (which includes the Carafe).  Then I can link the Global Variables to the custom properties.  Then I can create an equation subtracting the volume of the empty carafe from the liquid volume.  Then I can link another custom property to each of the variables that show the volumes.  It all seems to work great!

Except that, once I tried to link the custom property to the note, for some reason the note will only display the expression, not the evaluated value!  (I read that this is a major problem if you link a global variable to a custom property) Super frustrating!

So I read something about linking the global variable to a dimension, then linking the dimension to custom property, then linking the note to the custom property....but that doesn't work either.  As soon as I link the dimension to the global variable, everything blows up. Something to do with the update order.  It doesn't work.

Then I tried a Design Table, but that has the same inherent problems as the custom properties, except multiplied...because now you are adding in the update step of updating the design table.  You can't update the Model, all configurations and the design table all in 1 step.  You can get to 2 of the 3, but then you need to update the third, which prompts a cycle of re-updating the other 2, which puts the design table out of sync (which means that the number that I have linked to it gets a little * next to it, turning it into text and not a number, so unusable in equations....*sigh*)

Needless to say, on top of all this, Solidworks died on me about 2,463 times (might be a little exaggerated).

So, what I eventually did was the following:

1) Create my fill configurations (with the carafe full at the different levels) and then add each configuration as a part in an assembly.

2) Added the volume of each configuration (including Carafe) as a separate custom property at the assembly level.

3) Used Global Variables and equations to determine the liquid volume of each configuration (subtract the volume of the empty Carafe).

4) Link Those global variables to dimensions in a sketch at the assembly level (this is because I couldn't figure out how to link assembly global variables directly to part custom properties).

5) Create a sketch at the part level and link the dimensions from the assembly sketch to the part sketch.

6) Use the part sketch dimensions to drive part custom properties.

7) Use the part custom properties to drive the linked notes at the part level.

8) I added a BOM to the assembly with some equations only because I originally thought I might be able to link values from a BOM back to custom properties....can't be done as far as I know.

Notes:  It still doesn't update very well.  In fact, I have a massive circular reference between the part and the assembly and the ounces displayed on the part keep coming out to 0.

I have the calculations in a BOM, so I know that the program knows the numbers are there.

Honestly, I don't think that making the numbers parametric can be done with SW 2015.

AARGH!!  I have to stop...this is taking too long to do.

Attached a picture of the volumes at each level and the Pack and Go assembly that I have so far.  I know it isn't a winning submission, but maybe someone else can make it work.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Looks like it took you through the mill Dan Pihlaja - I did a little bit as well - but time isn't in my favor on this one, maybe I can hit it one evening with 2014 -

Here is what I did - just for starters..  I felt 100% sure that it would work, but I felt it was the long road around.

That was taking the model and adding a .000" offset surface on the inside of the Carafe, then creating a vertical sketch line segments per volume. then add a plane at the end of each sketch to add a flat top of the volume surface.  You would need to repeat this for every volume and at this point it wouldn't matter where the horizontal surface is - you can adjust that later... Then once you have separated all the volume segments now I was thinking of inserting that part into an assembly and adding a new component for every volume segment, not from the bottom up as you show above, each one would be different.  Once you have all of those components in the assembly and saved, now you can open assembly visualization and list the volume properties, double click on the vertical line sketch, change the dimension and rebuild, the assembly visualization will update and change till the proper volume is met... and so forth..

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Yes, I could have done that, but I wanted to parametrically link the volume note to the volume for each level.   That is the part that I couldn't do.

I will turn in a non-parametrically linked one sometime this week....ran out of time and a hot project just got dropped in my lap.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Dan Pihlaja  you said "Yes, I could have done that, but I wanted to parametrically link the volume note to the volume for each level.   That is the part that I couldn't do."

That's the easy part..  like you I am up against time so attached is a 2017 file of what I was talking about (I just adjusted the volumes so they're all the same).. - but you won't be able to open them up because they're 2017 files and I think you have 2015..

Not really a contestant - just another approach..

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I see what you did there.  SPP, not SSP.  So, instead of linking to a sketch, you linked to imported geometry... I didn't think of that.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

OK, enhancement requests submitted based on this challenge:

1-14922063244

1-14922063249

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Dan Pihlaja, once you get the SPR numbers back, please share them with us.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

K, here is my official submission (non parametric).  SW 2015.

I used an assembly to create a BOM of my configurations, because looking at the equation driven BOM was easier than going back to assembly visualization every time.  LOL

I was kind of unsure which way you wanted the Carafe, with the heights as integers, or the volumes as integers...so I did it both ways.

I am only submitting the one with the volumes as integers, though.  If you want the other one, let me know.

1. For eternal glory and 1000 points, be the first to estimate the volume of wine this carafe could hold. Provide the result in US fluid ounces, 3 decimal places, lower accuracy level.

66.630 oz, as shown in the picture of the BOM above.

2. For a bit more glory and 2000 points, be the first to place the measuring lines correctly. Please use 3 decimal places for both volume (US fluid ounces) and dimensions (inch). The height of each line is controlled by a global variable, as explained in the video.

I believe that the measuring lines are placed correctly

3. For maximum glory and 3000 points, be the first to demonstrate that the method you used, in placing the measuring lines correctly, is the most efficient one. You can describe your workflow in writing and/or by recording a video.

I offset the internal surfaces (including the handle) 0" and the used the lowest point of the spout to trim the offset surfaces down the spout level.  Then I added a surface to the top and made it a solid, separate body.

Then I Created planes who's definitions were the same as the definitions of the lines (i.e., I made them linked to the global variables).

I created 7 different "Cut with Surface" commands in each configuration.

I created 9 different configurations:

1) Carafe empty

2) Carafe full to brim

and 1 configuration for each liquid level.

Then I added the part to an assembly and patterned it 8 more times (total 9 parts).  I made each pattern item a different configuration (as shown in the picture above).

Then I added a BOM to the assembly and added a Volume column.

Then I added another column called "Calculated Liquid Volume".  In this BOM I added an equation in which each config's total volume is subtracted from the volume of the Empty Carafe's volume, leaving the volume of liquid.  This column is parametric (meaning that if you change one of the global variables in the part level that control the line heights, these values will update accordingly).

Then I added a "Height of Line" column.  This column is NOT parametric.

Then I played with the Global variables at the part level until the volumes were what I wanted them to be.

EDIT

Not totally sure that this is the most efficient one.  I discovered the "intersect" tool after I posted this which is a lot more efficient, but I didn't want to redo the study.

I used the BOM for 2 reasons:  It was an easy and fast way to check my numbers after I updated my heights and it was also an easy way to report out the heights and volumes for the competition.

As for the actual way that I did the volume changes:  All my volumes, including the empty carafe are stored in 1 part and 1 assembly.  Multiple configurations of the part....1 configuration of the assembly.  The only reason that I even added it to the assembly was that it was easiest way to report out the volumes.

And I made the liquid purple, because you said that it was wine, so I made it a nice red wine.  A white wine would have blended with the bottle too much and would have been hard to see.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Very interesting, Dan. it is informative to see that so many users are considering surfacing tools first. Love all answers received so far. Cool stuff; this is turning into a brainstorming session.

A few "wild" suggestions, to add gas to the fire.

What about avoiding the use of surfaces? What about minimizing the user input in this workflow? Let SOLIDWORKS do the work.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Alin,

I take up your "let SolidWorks do the work" challenge!

Building on my previous submissions, I first did a split line at 0.5" spacing (instead of 1") to get more data points. I then redid the spline in my Split Line vs Desired Sketch.

I combined the bodies, then created a new Split Line Sketch2 that has the horizontal lines mated to the matching points on Spline vs Measured Sketch.

Finally, I moved your labels Split Line2 feature to the end of the feature tree.Then edited the sketch to unlink the dimensions from your Global Variables and make them driven. Then I extended construction lines horizontally to Pierce split line sketch2. Now each label is centered on the liquid split.

So the only typing was to write down the initial volumes (with 0.5" spacing) and type them into the Spline Measurement vs. Desired sketch.

My original volumes, final dimensions and final volumes:

10      7.506 oz    1.209"      9.873 oz

20    19.911 oz    2.007"   19.999 oz

30    33.374 oz    2.745"    30.004 oz

40    45.254 oz    3.529"    40.007 oz

50    53.843 oz    4.501"    50.006 oz

60    59.160 oz    6.226"    60.007 oz

65    62.148 oz    9.130"    64.998 oz

MAX 66.624 oz  10.583"    66.631 oz

Notice that the total volume is actually 0.007 oz larger after the splits, which I assumes reflects rounding of 7 individual volumes.

And, because the marker lines are 0.040" tall, the only line that is off by a lot (0.127 oz) is 10. I attribute that to the dome glass bottom. Also, the 0 dimension is the glass bottom and not the start of the liquid.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I got thinking about the dome bottom affecting the 10 line, so I trimmed the Spline so that it starts at 0.5" . No other changes.

My original volumes, final dimensions and final volumes:

10      7.506 oz    1.220"    10.007 oz

20    19.911 oz    2.007"  20.000 oz

30    33.374 oz    2.745"    30.001 oz

40    45.254 oz    3.529"    40.007 oz

50    53.843 oz    4.501"    50.006 oz

60    59.160 oz    6.226"    60.007 oz

65    62.148 oz    9.130"    64.988 oz

MAX 66.624 oz  10.583"    66.631 oz

- - - - - - - -

So here it is -- the good, the bad & the ugly (I am of course referring to my logical (?) thought process: I try to stick with the K.I.S.S principle. (Keep It Simple SolidWorks)

1. Used Surface Offset as a quick way to get the interior shape.

2. Used a sketch line mated to the low point of the spout to get a surface for maximum fill level.

3. Used Surface Trim to create a solid representing the max volume. Made it red wine because white would be harder to see.

4. Because of the organic shape, there is a non-linear relationship between height and volume. Added an offset plane for a series of horizontal lines, spaced 0.5" apart. Then used the Split command to create a set of bodies.

5. Used Mass Properties to get the cumulative volume at each 0.5" increment. (Had to use a pencil & paper because my memory, while good, is short.)

6. a) Mapped those measurements in the Spline Measured vs Desired Sketch. Y-axis is a series of horizontal construction lines, every 0.5". X-axis is a set of vertical construction lines. X-dimension (in inches) is the Volume from #5. THIS IS MY DESIGN STUDY.

b) Added a Spline to connect all these points. Because of the domed bottom, started the Spline at 0.5" vertical.

c) Then added a set of vertical lines along the X-axis, spaced at 10" (representing 10 oz. increments) and with a Coincident mate to the Spline.. Added driven Y-dimension for reference only. Because max volume is < 70 oz, added a line for 65 oz.

7. Combined the bodies from #4 in preparation for doing the "real" body splits.

8. Added a new Split Line plane2 (parallel to the Front plane.

9. Created a Split Line2 sketch with horizontal lines coincident to the points in 6(c). (No dimensions needed!)

10. Used #9 to split the wine body in 10 oz. increments.

11. Moved Alin's Split Line2 feature to the end. REMOVED the dimension links to his Global Variables. Made them driven dimensions. Added horizontal construction lines that are coincident with lines in #9. Edited the "70" label to be 65.

12, Used Mass Properties to see how close I got.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Bill Toft wrote:

I got thinking about the dome bottom affecting the 10 line, so I trimmed the Spline so that it starts at 0.5" . No other changes.

My original volumes, final dimensions and final volumes:

10 7.506 oz 1.220" 10.007 oz

20 19.911 oz 2.007" 20.000 oz

30 33.374 oz 2.745" 30.001 oz

40 45.254 oz 3.529" 40.007 oz

50 53.843 oz 4.501" 50.006 oz

60 59.160 oz 6.226" 60.007 oz

65 62.148 oz 9.130" 64.988 oz

MAX 66.624 oz 10.583" 66.631 oz

Very interesting technique! Thanks, Bill!

Can't wait for the debate to start. It might get quite heated, when discussing the merit of one method versus the other.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Bill Toft wrote:

And, because the marker lines are 0.040" tall, the only line that is off by a lot (0.127 oz) is 10. I attribute that to the dome glass bottom. Also, the 0 dimension is the glass bottom and not the start of the liquid.

Good point, Bill. That is why I included those global variables, which define the bottom on the marker lines.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Well there are these two ways to get the internal volume (see attached).

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Dan Pihlaja wrote:

K, here is my official submission (non parametric). SW 2015.

I used an assembly to create a BOM of my configurations, because looking at the equation driven BOM was easier than going back to assembly visualization every time. LOL

I was kind of unsure which way you wanted the Carafe, with the heights as integers, or the volumes as integers...so I did it both ways.

I am only submitting the one with the volumes as integers, though. If you want the other one, let me know.

1. For eternal glory and 1000 points, be the first to estimate the volume of wine this carafe could hold. Provide the result in US fluid ounces, 3 decimal places, lower accuracy level.

66.630 oz, as shown in the picture of the BOM above.

2. For a bit more glory and 2000 points, be the first to place the measuring lines correctly. Please use 3 decimal places for both volume (US fluid ounces) and dimensions (inch). The height of each line is controlled by a global variable, as explained in the video.

I believe that the measuring lines are placed correctly

3. For maximum glory and 3000 points, be the first to demonstrate that the method you used, in placing the measuring lines correctly, is the most efficient one. You can describe your workflow in writing and/or by recording a video.

I offset the internal surfaces (including the handle) 0" and the used the lowest point of the spout to trim the offset surfaces down the spout level. Then I added a surface to the top and made it a solid, separate body.

Then I Created planes who's definitions were the same as the definitions of the lines (i.e., I made them linked to the global variables).

I created 7 different "Cut with Surface" commands in each configuration.

I created 9 different configurations:

1) Carafe empty

2) Carafe full to brim

and 1 configuration for each liquid level.

Then I added the part to an assembly and patterned it 8 more times (total 9 parts). I made each pattern item a different configuration (as shown in the picture above).

Then I added a BOM to the assembly and added a Volume column.

Then I added another column called "Calculated Liquid Volume". In this BOM I added an equation in which each config's total volume is subtracted from the volume of the Empty Carafe's volume, leaving the volume of liquid. This column is parametric (meaning that if you change one of the global variables in the part level that control the line heights, these values will update accordingly).

Then I added a "Height of Line" column. This column is NOT parametric.

Then I played with the Global variables at the part level until the volumes were what I wanted them to be.

Creativity and originality at its best!

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Hello,

Here is a concept to find the level marks automatically using design checker. I just did the first mark the other can be found accordingly.

Entry just for reference.

Elmar

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Thinking outside of the Carafe

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Elmar Klammer wrote:

Hello,   Here is a concept to find the level marks automatically using design checker. I just did the first mark the other can be found accordingly.   Entry just for reference.   Elmar

The design study is a great tool! The design optimization is a great time saver.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I was going to do it the same way as Elmar Klammer - Intersects & Sensors

It was reassuring to see that he also ran into the SPR issue that I mentioned (SPR#588882) - I'm really hoping they fix that soon!

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Todd Blacksher wrote:

I was going to do it the same way as Elmar Klammer - Intersects & Sensors

It was reassuring to see that he also ran into the SPR issue that I mentioned (SPR#588882) - I'm really hoping they fix that soon!

Do it, Todd. We need results and arguments on merits of each workfloW used.

There is a lot of value in describing bugs, SPRs and workarounds, also.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I'll see if I can give it a shot tonight.

(It's somewhat similar to my slugme closer)

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Here is the skinny –

I thought I had a “great idea”, so I dove in headfirst last night . . .

My original thought was:

1)      Set up planes using the gradations to set the height

2)      Use these planes for an intersect on the carafe to get the internal volumes

3)      Set a sensor for each of the volumes

4)      Drag the planes up & down to get close to the necessary volume

5)      Run a design study on fast quality to get a little closer

6)      Run the study on standard quality to “fine tune” the results

While it appears as though this did work, it ended up being a little more cumbersome than I originally envisioned.

It was still EXTREMELY easy to get very accurate numbers with little effort on my part – which is how I prefer to work: put a lot of thought in up front, carefully set everything up, let the computer get to work while I go out and grab some coffee.

I am not sure if this was a function of SPR#588882, but I set my design study for 10.000 US fluid ounces, but in the results view it would show “is exactly 0.000295735”

As I have seen with this SPR, the sensor is shifted to the next option up in units, just above US fluid ounces is hectoliters – my design study absolutely nailed this to 8 decimal places, but there is such a big difference between the two measurements, that my results are off.

I tried to trick it by shifting the units in document settings and redoing the design study – no dice, it is really hung up on hectoliters now.

To throw a little more gas on this fire, I’ve found that if you edit a sensor, it will change the units until you do a full rebuild.

Now I am starting to get a little bit cranky . . .

Life would be a little better if I could drag to rearrange sensors and bodies in the Feature Manager.

Thanks for the fun & humbling challenge!

todd

Edit: All the gory details . . .

I described my thought process for the challenge above, but here is a little more detail:

1)      I offset the planes from the top plane and used a point in the gradation sketch for the height (This keeps everything linked together quite nicely!)

-          I did use a sketch point at the lip for the last plane (complete volume of carafe.)

2)      Using the intersect command is one of my favorite for getting internal volumes – it is quick, it is clean, and it gives me a separate body that can be easily measured. (This is why I used planes.)

-          This also allowed me to try to hit 10.000 fluid ounces for each individual body.

-          I kept all bodies from the intersect command, and just hid everything but the fluid.

3)      Since each of the levels is a different body, it was easy to set a sensor for each.

(This also makes it easy to see the volume of each body, especially when making updates!)

-          One of the sensors was for two different bodies, because of the hollow handle – no biggie.

4)      Since the planes are linked to the Global Variables, I could do some quick tweaking by dragging dimensions in the gradation sketch and/or using “Manage Equations” to get the volumes to a good “starting point.”

5)      I set up a design study, because, well, as I mentioned before, I would really rather let the computer do the hard work. (Gives me a chance to see what is happening on the forums!)

-          My original plan was to do one level at a time, because when you adjust the dimension for one level, it effects the volume calculations for the neighboring levels.

-          Throwing caution into the wind, I decided to optimize everything at once.

-          Not sure if this was a good idea, but I started by using relatively small steps with the fast solver. This got me really close, so then it was easy to set a range and use the high quality solver.

todd

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

No wonder he's grumpy

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I was hoping someone would get that!

Good Job!

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Thanks for using the correct names.

Now I see how prosaic this image looks:

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

It's all about having fun . . .

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Todd Blacksher wrote:

It's all about having fun . . .

I like that. Maybe we should have a special award for the user who has the most fun solving these problems.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I think we are all having a lot of fun, that's why we come here . . .

todd

"If it isn't fun, it isn't fun."

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Todd Blacksher wrote:

Thanks for the fun & humbling challenge!

todd

Did you run one study or six? Please attach your part, to enter the competition.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

aw crud, it didn't attach when I originally posted!

I went back and edited my original post to include the attachment.

edit: for studies, my intent was to start at the bottom of the carafe and work my way up. Get it really close, run the study, add the next section, run the study, add the next section, and so on. I ended up just mashing them all into one study, running it "fast results", tweaking the numbers, running it "high quality" and nailing it down.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I started down this path at first but could not get any results that made any sense so I abandoned it.

was not aware of this SPR

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I was whining about this SPR before he even started this challenge, and now it really bugs me!

It should have been quite a bit easier, but there was a lot of weird goofing around that I had to do to make it work.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Todd Blacksher wrote:

I was whining about this SPR before he even started this challenge, and now it really bugs me!

It should have been quite a bit easier, but there was a lot of weird goofing around that I had to do to make it work.

I did not see it as being a showstopper. I like to use STEP with Range and then you can easily see the calculated volumes.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

My first passes were STEP with range, after I ran the steps down to .001 or .0005 I rolled it over to the limits.

(That was how I got it pretty close initially.)

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Ladies and Gentlemen who submitted your solutions for the 3rd challenge, please also explain the merits of your solution. The readers need to understand why some power-users liked surfacing tools, why others used the Intersect Tools, why some used Excel, why others used design studies, why some made the wine red and others green...

There are no rights or wrongs here, please make your case with full confidence.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Alin Vargatu - Why did I do it my way -

1.     Have another option that doesn't use anything but the basics - no sensors or equations

2.     Test a SSP/Master Part Hybrid  approach to this type of design, by using partial part features and Sketches etc..

3.     Using the surfaces the way I did can be problematic when you initially start moving the planes, primarily in the area of the handle and Carafe body.

4.     I would like to work with solids as the master part and then forget about using any surfaces...

5.     Wish I had more time

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Alin Vargatu wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen who submitted your solutions for the 3rd challenge, please also explain the merits of your solution. The readers need to understand why some power-users liked surfacing tools, why others used the Intersect Tools, why some used Excel, why others used design studies, why some made the wine red and others green...

There are no rights or wrongs here, please make your case with full confidence.

I edited my original submission post.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I also edited my original post.

thanks!

todd

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I just used some Gr.8 math graphing knowledge with a basic function which was available from the beginning of Solidworks. Nothing fancy .

Posted is my very first attempt which took about 45 minutes. It gave quite accurate results to the requested accuracy level. i.e. "Provide the result in US fluid ounces, 3 decimal places, lower accuracy level"

I'm sure everybody here could understand my steps as described in my initial posting here. If it's unclear, please let me know.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Also edited my latest post.

Comment: shouldn't all dimensions be to nearest 0.001".

Remember, most wine drinkers only care about 2 measurements: Full & Empty!

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I thought about doing this, but I can't because I don't have SW premium (maybe someone who does can try it out):

1) Create the internal volume of the Carafe and then save it as a separate part

2) Create a Global variable linked to the volume of the part and call it "VolumeOfLiquid"

3) Create a plane and do a "cut with surface" of the liquid volume at say height = .25" from the origin.

4) Create a global variable linked to the measurement from the origin to the top surface of the cut liquid volume and call it "HeightOfLiquid".

5) Create a sketch on the Right plane and add a single point.  Add 2 dimensions to locate that point, 1 horizontal and 1 vertical from the origin.  Name the horizontal dimension "VolumeVariable" and name the Vertical dimension "HeightVariable"

6) Link the "VolumeVariable" dimension to the "VolumeOfLiquid" Global variable

7) Link the "HeightVariable" dimension to the "HeightOfLiquid" global variable.

8) Now when you drag the slider on the plane height dimension on the plane that is creating the plane cut, you can see the point slide as well.

(Here's the part I can't do because I don't have SW Premium, so this is all theoretical as far as I am concerned  I went so far as to do the rest, though)

9) Now run a motion analysis and use the plane height as your item that is changing and run a trace of the path of the point to create a curve.

10) Then import that curve back into the part and position it correctly and lock it in place.  Now you have a graph of volume vs height of the liquid.

11) Create another sketch and add a point to it and make it coincident to the curve.

12) Add a horizontal dimension to the point, originating from the origin, and give it a value of 10 (placing the point along the graph at 10 fl. oz).

13) Add a vertical dimension to the point and make it driven.  (Now you know the exact height at 10 fl. oz)

14) Link your dimension to 1 of 2 things (not sure which one will work, if any)

a) a custom property, then link your "TenLevel" global variable to the custom property

b) Directly to the dimension that locates the "TenLevel" sketch dimension

EDIT:  c) Just thought of something.   Instead, you could create another global variable linked to the measurement of the point from the origin (Top plane).  Then link the height of the TenLevel Sketch split curve to the global variable.  Then you wouldn't even need step 13.

15) Repeat steps 11-14 for the rest of the volumes.

Not totally sure that it will work (Step 14 might be the game ender).

Edit2: You know what...I also just remembered....going to do the linking at the assembly level.  Can't so this with just one part.  Need an assembly of the liquid and the carafe.

Then have the Global variable mentioned in step 14c drive the height of the split line in the carafe part, through the assembly.

Will someone try it out?

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

How close can you get?

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

You've got me by a little bit, but I can tweak this . . .

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

One more pass through the Design Study -

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Second pass -

I could easily do some more tweaking to my design study, but these look pretty good to me.

(I need to do some non-Design Study crunching . . .)

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

I fully agree with Michael Fernando and Bill Toft - By the rules of the challenge .001" is PLENTY close, and by the rules of drinking, it is either "full", "half empty/time to order another", or "empty/where is the next one?!"

The fun part of setting this up as a design study is that when Alin Vargatu threw down the gauntlet and wanted more accuracy, I spent a minute or two tweaking the ranges for my dimensions, clicked "Run", and went and grabbed another coffee.

If I didn't have other stuff that needed to get done, I probably would have run 2 or 3 more design studies, because I know I can get it even closer . . . then again, I'm pretty sure that a single drop is bigger than .00012 fluid ounces!

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Todd Blacksher wrote:

. . . then again, I'm pretty sure that a single drop is bigger than .00012 fluid ounces!

Not much bigger!

Edit: Woops, off by a factor of 10 there!

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Thanks to all who participated in this week's challenge. I started the hard task of judging all entries.

I want to do a thorough job, so please allow for some time before the winners are announced.

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Hello All,

I know that time is out I needed to travel back and forth so I didn't have time in the previous days but I really want to share this with you, letting the computer do the hard work getting the volume right up to 8 places after the decimal point and even more:) (you specify the max error you accept) without so much processing time (seconds for level).

I used a macro, the first macro I write to be specific so I'm happy that this challenge encouraged me to learn and try.

In short, I made another configuration for each level and deleted the Carafe itself and cut the fluid with a plane (all of this is done for simplicity, to deal with only one solid body in the part but it could have been done without this)

Then for the first level 10 ounces I tell the macro the needed level 10 and the height of the plane  I used for the cut 1

then the macro measures the volume compare it to the 10 ounces

if it's more, then the height et decreased a bit (0.012m  about half in)

if it's less, then the height et increased a bit

every time this bit is divided by 2 so that the error converge

This will continue to happen until the error (difference between the measured volume and the 10 ounces) gets smaller than a value that I specify at first

every time this bit is divided by 2 so that the error converge

Takes just some seconds to solve then I select the second config change the 10 to 20 and the starting height from 1in to 2in

If I got some people interested I'll make a video discussing that I've done and why.

Have a nice one

• ###### Re: The 10th Weekly Power-User Challenge (September 15th, 2017): Measuring Wine Carafe

Hello All,

I know that time is out I needed to travel back and forth so I didn't have time in the previous days but I really want to share this with you, letting the computer do the hard work getting the volume right up to 8 places after the decimal point and even more:) (you specify the max error you accept) without so much processing time (seconds for level).

I used a macro, the first macro I write to be specific so I'm happy that this challenge encouraged me to learn and try.

In short, I made another configuration for each level and deleted the Carafe itself and cut the fluid with a plane (all of this is done for simplicity, to deal with only one solid body in the part but it could have been done without this)

Then for the first level 10 ounces I tell the macro the needed level 10 and the height of the plane I used for the cut 1

then the macro measures the volume compare it to the 10 ounces

if it's more, then the height et decreased a bit (0.012m about half in)

if it's less, then the height et increased a bit

every time this bit is divided by 2 so that the error converge

This will continue to happen until the error (difference between the measured volume and the 10 ounces) gets smaller than a value that I specify at first

every time this bit is divided by 2 so that the error converge

Takes just some seconds to solve then I select the second config change the 10 to 20 and the starting height from 1in to 2in

If I got some people interested I'll make a video discussing that I've done and why.

Have a nice one

Would love to see the video!