Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:26 AM - Re: B&C switches (user9253)
2. 08:17 AM - Fw: Re: Question for Bob (Rocketman1988)
3. 08:23 AM - Re: Fw: Re: Question for Bob (John Tipton)
4. 09:20 AM - Re: Re: B&C switches (Ken Ryan)
5. 09:45 AM - Re: Re: B&C switches (Ken Ryan)
6. 10:02 AM - Fw: Re: Question for Bob (user9253)
7. 10:39 AM - Re: Re: B&C switches (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 10:46 AM - Electronic Bus Manager Versus Fuses & Breakers (user9253)
9. 11:48 AM - Failure Mode Effects Analysis (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 12:08 PM - Fw: Re: Question for Bob (Rocketman1988)
11. 02:24 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Question for Bob (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 02:25 PM - Cost effective technology (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 03:16 PM - Re: Re: B&C switches (Charlie England)
14. 03:23 PM - Re: Re: B&C switches (FLYaDIVE)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus managers. When
something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent back to the manufacturer for
repair, if they are still in business. Compare that to conventional wiring when
a fuse blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is required to figure out why the
fuse blew. But the aircraft is still flyable without that one circuit, which
any mechanic can troubleshoot. Fuses are just as easy to install as the electronic
box and cost a whole lot less.
Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS screen is a nice
feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking out the windows and to do
troubleshooting when on the ground?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481691#481691
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
Very true.
You posted a reply in another thread that stated battery contactor failures in
flight are exceedingly rare. Hypothetically, you could put a battery contactor
in the feed line to a forward buss. This contactor would be checked prior to
every flight, as the engine could not be started if there was a failure, and the
ability to isolate the battery is retained. Given that there would be two separate
feeders to that buss, the likelihood of both contactors failing simultaneously
would be quite small, leaving the buss powered in the event of a single
failure.
Thoughts?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481699#481699
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
It's a pity that this topic didn't have a proper Thread/Subject line, for future
reference
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 17 Jul 2018, at 4:17 pm, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.com> wrote:
>
>
> Very true.
>
> You posted a reply in another thread that stated battery contactor failures in
flight are exceedingly rare. Hypothetically, you could put a battery contactor
in the feed line to a forward buss. This contactor would be checked prior to
every flight, as the engine could not be started if there was a failure, and
the ability to isolate the battery is retained. Given that there would be two
separate feeders to that buss, the likelihood of both contactors failing simultaneously
would be quite small, leaving the buss powered in the event of a single
failure.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481699#481699
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
Bob, I would love to hear actual specifics on precisely what aspects of the
EFII bus manager make it unsafe (or less safe) than your legacy drawings,
and more importantly, how the legacy drawings overcome the deficits of the
Bus Manager. Ken Ryan
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:13 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 08:54 PM 7/16/2018, you wrote:
>
> den_beaulieu@yahoo.com>
>
> Thanks Bob, I get nervous when you get "mystified"... my setup is a dual
> battery, with single PMA alternator The alternator runs thru a 40A ANL
> then to a common terminal with Batt #1 to the Main bus relay, and the #2
> battery runs to the Essential (endurance) bus relay. The EarthX batteries
> have onboard battery management (BMS) for battery "issues", and I have the
> B&C OVP module for the alternator, along with cockpit disconnect switch. I
> went with the EFII Bus Manager as a way to help with my system wiring
> during my design phase. Pros and Cons are always ready to be heard by
> me...only way I can consider improvements for the next time or as needed.
> I did go ahead and start wiring for the hydraulic pump with items from the
> "care" package you sent. Decided to tap power directly from the #1
> battery, thru the MANL to the relays which are all located on the engine
> firewall forward. About a 8" run from the positive terminal to the MANL,
> and 6" run to the relays, and plenty of convenient grounding tabs! I've
> attached a pic for comments. Thanks for everyone's interest and
> insight...very much appreciated! Dave
>
>
> I understand . . . and no doubt the EFII
> gizmo performs as advertised. But you've already
> experienced a design conundrum with where to tie
> your hydraulic pump feeder to the system.
>
> Products like the ECII, EXP-Bus, etc all perform
> as advertised in the designer's airplane and
> probably most of his/her customers. But the problem
> you're wrestling wasn't conceived by the designer
> of the whiz-bang-box . . . further, the design
> chooses to march to the beat of a different drum
> when it comes to FMEA and legacy design goals
> for aircraft.
>
> This is why there are so many variations on a
> theme in the z-figures. For TC single engine aircraft,
> the wirebook for a C150 wasn't materially different
> than for a C210. Even today, that line of aircraft
> use a lot of common hardware. Cessna has their own
> whiz-bang box
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> Even includes the ground power connector!
>
> The difference between this whiz-bang-box and
> the EFII is that the box was designed to condense
> about 80 years of lessons learned into a labor
> saving product that didn't introduce new risks
> or radically modify normal and abnormal operating
> instructions.
>
> One would hope that producers of EXB-Bus, EFII
> et. als. had some philosophy founded in good
> FMEA outcomes while maximizing flexibility of
> application for the greatest number of builders.
> Sadly, I'm seeing little, if any, consideration
> for such matters in these products.
>
> This is why I am reluctant to suggest work-arounds
> for problem like yours. Offering a personal band-aid
> on a poorly designed accessory might easily be
> mis-interpreted as some kind of agreement with
> the design of the product. Suffice it to say that
> there are good reasons why I would not be able to
> qualify those products onto a TC aircraft under
> the rules in place when I was last involved in
> such things.
>
> Having said all that, I'll suggest you locate your
> MANL as close as practical to the EFII battery(+)
> terminal and tie it in there. This will FUNCTION
> but it's a really scuzzy band-aid.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
Good point Joe, regarding future maintenance considerations. But that is
not a safety issue. Bob said that the Bus Manager is poorly designed in
that it appears to him that a proper FEMA analysis was not conducted. I'm
not arguing the point, but I do think such a statement should be
accompanied by the specifics that back up the opinion. (Much the same as if
someone declared Bob's OV module is poorly designed without providing any
specifics.) Incidentally, the "newfangled" OV module suffers a similar
problem of very limited availability.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:31 AM user9253 <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus managers.
> When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent back to the
> manufacturer for repair, if they are still in business. Compare that to
> conventional wiring when a fuse blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is
> required to figure out why the fuse blew. But the aircraft is still
> flyable without that one circuit, which any mechanic can troubleshoot.
> Fuses are just as easy to install as the electronic box and cost a whole
> lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS screen
> is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking out the windows
> and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481691#481691
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
Rocketman1988,
Your reasoning is valid. The chances of two contactors failing on a single flight
are infinitesimal. Infinitesimal is defined as the the amount an aircraft
carrier sinks in the water when a fly lands on its deck.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481703#481703
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
At 07:26 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
>
>Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus
>managers. When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent
>back to the manufacturer for repair, if they are still in
>business. Compare that to conventional wiring when a fuse
>blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is required to figure out why the
>fuse blew. But the aircraft is still flyable without that one
>circuit, which any mechanic can troubleshoot. Fuses are just as
>easy to install as the electronic box and cost a whole lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS
> screen is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking
> out the windows and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
A good question. A friend of mine was offered a 'heck of
a deal" on a new hay baler. $thousands$ in discounts.
Emacs!
The dealer even brought it out and hooked it up to his
tractor some 55 miles from his dealership. I was astounded
at the complexity of this machine compared with the
20 year old JD bailer that was supposed to get retired.
This new machine had cables, sensors, actuators, electronic
control box and a long bundle of wires that routed up to
the cab of the tractor to communicate with a touch-screen
control panel.
The following day (with the dealer having gone home)
several hours were expended trying to figure out how
to get this marvel of agricultural technology to wake
up. It even got the attention of neighboring farmers
who had identical machines. Two days later, the dealer
was back and discovered that a particular but critical
cable assembly was not installed. After fixing that
error, the machine lit up, sang Dixie and said, "Lets
go roll up that hay."
The following week, my friend was loading a new
roll of netting when a cable assembly got tangled
in some moving part and got ripped out of the connector
and broke something else. Dealer came back and opined
that repairs would only take $3,000 worth of parts
and the 'good' news was that they were in stock in
Wichita . . . they would be in tomorrow.
A couple more days later, the machine was back in the
field spitting out thousand pound bales of feed.
Direct losses for the downtime were pretty impressive
not to mention indirect losses for delays in getting
feed out of the field before it got too dry.
I could not help but wonder if his old baler could
not have been refurbished for a whole lot less money.
Better yet, it uses technology that was well understood,
spare parts only 20 miles way and talents to repair
were in possession of the owner!
The fine art of striving for market success goes
far deeper than getting excited about having incorporated
the latest gee-whiz features. More than once, I've often
stared at the screen on my 'smart phone' wishing
I had more control over what it did well . . . and
being able to dump what I don't need (about 75% of
what's installed).
Someone once opined, "Sometimes the best way to
drive a nail is with a hammer."
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Electronic Bus Manager Versus Fuses & Breakers |
What I do not like to see is an electrically-challenged builder installing a bus
manager because he thinks that doing so will be easier than using fuses or circuit
breakers. I do not think it is any easier. On the other hand, if a builder
is knowledgeable about electronics and wants to have the latest and greatest
gizmos including a bus manager, then fine. To each his own. I prefer fuses
for simplicity and less cost and less weight. And fused circuits are easy
for me to troubleshoot. Sometimes the choice is not a matter of right or wrong,
but rather two or more ways to accomplish the goal, each being acceptable.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481705#481705
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Failure Mode Effects Analysis |
At 11:44 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
>Good point Joe, regarding future maintenance considerations. But
>that is not a safety issue. Bob said that the Bus Manager is poorly
>designed in that it appears to him that a proper FEMA analysis was
>not conducted. I'm not arguing the point, but I do think such a
>statement should be accompanied by the specifics that back up the
>opinion. (Much the same as if someone declared Bob's OV module is
>poorly designed without providing any specifics.) Incidentally, the
>"newfangled" OV module suffers a similar problem of very limited availability.
Conducting an FEMA is a process of considering the
consequences of perhaps hundreds of simple failures
with respect to:
1. How are the ways that this particular component
can fail?
2. How would this particular failure manifest in
terms of system performance?
3. Does the failure elevate risk for a comfortable
termination of flight?
4. How would the pilot become aware of that failure?
5. Is the system fitted with a means by which that
failure can be mitigated?
6. Is the failure pre-flight detectable? If not,
should a means for pre-flight testing or in-flight
annunciation be incorporated?
Deducing the answer to these questions for EVERY
part of an airplane allows the competent and
experienced observer to write a report that speaks
to the rational for sprinkling holy-water on
the collection of parts that make up a component
of the overall system. FMEA can and should be
applied to every part of a system whether a nut
and screw or a transistor in the EFCI. To be
sure there are few really critical parts but unless
they are identified and accounted for, the system
is burdened with unnecessary and perhaps catastrophic
risk.
The goal is to achieve a high level of confidence
that the system is failure tolerant. This means
that probable failures are either (1) insignificant
with respect to comfortable termination of flight
or (2) have backup plans that makes the failure
insignificant.
This is the foundation for my assertions that
there should be no reason that OBAM aircraft
should not be fitted with out-of-reach fuse
panels. The ultimate salute to the FAA requirement
for carrying spares for all 'critical' fuses
is to eliminate all critical fuses.
Crew awareness of failures is an important
part of the analysis. I.e. no high risk
failure should be allowed to go
un-noticed . . . ideally, annunciated
in flight or identified during pre-flight.
Beyond the FMEA, there are cost of ownership
issues. Some of which are obvious based on
lessons learned; others that won't manifest
until the marketplace has a chance to conduct
the real-life studies.
My concerns for devices like EFII, EXP-Bus
extend beyond FMEA to also cover cost-of-
ownership and abandonment of legacy design
goals.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
As the OP, I wanted to ask Bob, specifically, a question. The title was meant to
do just that. I do, however, agree with you that there is a good discussion
goin on. Not sure if I can change the title, I will try...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481707#481707
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
At 02:07 PM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
><Rocketman@etczone.com>
>
>As the OP, I wanted to ask Bob, specifically, a question. The title
>was meant to do just that. I do, however, agree with you that there
>is a good discussion goin on. Not sure if I can change the title, I will try...
Don't worry about it. "Thread creep" is a very
common phenomenon during such discussions. It's
exacerbated by my own scrambling of responses
when dealing with more than one thread. Thread
titles can be quickly obsoleted.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cost effective technology |
At 07:26 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
>
>Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus
>managers. When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent
>back to the manufacturer for repair, if they are still in
>business. Compare that to conventional wiring when a fuse
>blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is required to figure out why the
>fuse blew. But the aircraft is still flyable without that one
>circuit, which any mechanic can troubleshoot. Fuses are just as
>easy to install as the electronic box and cost a whole lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS
> screen is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking
> out the windows and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
A good question. A friend of mine was offered a 'heck of
a deal" on a new hay baler. $thousands$ in discounts.
Emacs!
The dealer even brought it out and hooked it up to his
tractor some 55 miles from his dealership. I was astounded
at the complexity of this machine compared with the
20 year old JD bailer that was supposed to get retired.
This new machine had cables, sensors, actuators, electronic
control box and a long bundle of wires that routed up to
the cab of the tractor to communicate with a touch-screen
control panel.
The following day (with the dealer having gone home)
several hours were expended trying to figure out how
to get this marvel of agricultural technology to wake
up. It even got the attention of neighboring farmers
who had identical machines. Two days later, the dealer
was back and discovered that a particular but critical
cable assembly was not installed. After fixing that
error, the machine lit up, sang Dixie and said, "Lets
go roll up that hay."
The following week, my friend was loading a new
roll of netting when a cable assembly got tangled
in some moving part and got ripped out of the connector
and broke something else. Dealer came back and opined
that repairs would only take $3,000 worth of parts
and the 'good' news was that they were in stock in
Wichita . . . they would be in tomorrow.
A couple more days later, the machine was back in the
field spitting out thousand pound bales of feed.
Direct losses for the downtime were pretty impressive
not to mention indirect losses for delays in getting
feed out of the field before it got too dry.
I could not help but wonder if his old baler could
not have been refurbished for a whole lot less money.
Better yet, it uses technology that was well understood,
spare parts only 20 miles way and talents to repair
were in possession of the owner!
The fine art of striving for market success goes
far deeper than getting excited about having incorporated
the latest gee-whiz features. More than once, I've often
stared at the screen on my 'smart phone' wishing
I had more control over what it did well . . . and
being able to dump what I don't need (about 75% of
what's installed).
Someone once opined, "Sometimes the best way to
drive a nail is with a hammer."
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
Ken,
There was a long discussion on this list about multiple single points of
failure in the Bus Manager device, and there have been several threads
on the VAF forum discussing multiple single points of failure in the
device. Here's one:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=146753&highlight=bus+manager
Unfortunately, the VAF forum owner considers his profit margin more
important than the service his members supply (for free), so all the
images have disappeared. But you should be able to get some idea from
just the text in that thread. The response of Robert Paisley (face of
Bus Manager's parent company) is that 'there have been no failures so
far, so move along; nothing to see here'.
You can kludge stuff around it to make the total a/c system somewhat
less vulnerable to single failures in the Bus Manager taking down the
whole system, but why pay the big bucks, only to have to do that?
On 7/17/2018 11:44 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Good point Joe, regarding future maintenance considerations. But that
> is not a safety issue. Bob said that the Bus Manager is poorly
> designed in that it appears to him that a proper FEMA analysis was not
> conducted. I'm not arguing the point, but I do think such a statement
> should be accompanied by the specifics that back up the opinion. (Much
> the same as if someone declared Bob's OV module is poorly designed
> without providing any specifics.) Incidentally, the "newfangled" OV
> module suffers a similar problem of very limited availability.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:31 AM user9253 <fransew@gmail.com
> <mailto:fransew@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> <fransew@gmail.com <mailto:fransew@gmail.com>>
>
> Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus
> managers. When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent
> back to the manufacturer for repair, if they are still in
> business. Compare that to conventional wiring when a fuse blows.
> Yes, electrical knowledge is required to figure out why the fuse
> blew. But the aircraft is still flyable without that one circuit,
> which any mechanic can troubleshoot. Fuses are just as easy to
> install as the electronic box and cost a whole lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS
> screen is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking
> out the windows and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
=8BStar Trek's Scotty =8Bsaid it best: The more complicated th
ey make it the
easier it is to destroy. OK, I'm not accurate in the quote, but you get
the idea.
Barry
PS
I'm NOT a Trek-ie!
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:26 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus managers.
> When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent back to the
> manufacturer for repair, if they are still in business. Compare that to
> conventional wiring when a fuse blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is
> required to figure out why the fuse blew. But the aircraft is still
> flyable without that one circuit, which any mechanic can troubleshoot.
> Fuses are just as easy to install as the electronic box and cost a whole
> lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS screen
> is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking out the windo
ws
> and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
>
>
> A good question. A friend of mine was offered a 'heck of
> a deal" on a new hay baler. $thousands$ in discounts.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
>
> The dealer even brought it out and hooked it up to his
> tractor some 55 miles from his dealership. I was astounded
> at the complexity of this machine compared with the
> 20 year old JD bailer that was supposed to get retired.
>
> This new machine had cables, sensors, actuators, electronic
> control box and a long bundle of wires that routed up to
> the cab of the tractor to communicate with a touch-screen
> control panel.
>
> The following day (with the dealer having gone home)
> several hours were expended trying to figure out how
> to get this marvel of agricultural technology to wake
> up. It even got the attention of neighboring farmers
> who had identical machines. Two days later, the dealer
> was back and discovered that a particular but critical
> cable assembly was not installed. After fixing that
> error, the machine lit up, sang Dixie and said, "Lets
> go roll up that hay."
>
> The following week, my friend was loading a new
> roll of netting when a cable assembly got tangled
> in some moving part and got ripped out of the connector
> and broke something else. Dealer came back and opined
> that repairs would only take $3,000 worth of parts
> and the 'good' news was that they were in stock in
> Wichita . . . they would be in tomorrow.
>
> A couple more days later, the machine was back in the
> field spitting out thousand pound bales of feed.
> Direct losses for the downtime were pretty impressive
> not to mention indirect losses for delays in getting
> feed out of the field before it got too dry.
>
> I could not help but wonder if his old baler could
> not have been refurbished for a whole lot less money.
> Better yet, it uses technology that was well understood,
> spare parts only 20 miles way and talents to repair
> were in possession of the owner!
>
> The fine art of striving for market success goes
> far deeper than getting excited about having incorporated
> the latest gee-whiz features. More than once, I've often
> stared at the screen on my 'smart phone' wishing
> I had more control over what it did well . . . and
> being able to dump what I don't need (about 75% of
> what's installed).
>
> Someone once opined, "Sometimes the best way to
> drive a nail is with a hammer."
>
> Bob . . .
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|