Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:52 AM - Re: Cost effective technology (Rocketman1988)
2. 08:20 AM - Re: Re: Cost effective technology (Ernest Christley)
3. 09:25 AM - Re: Re: Cost effective technology (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 09:32 AM - Re: Re: Cost effective technology (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:22 PM - Re: Re: Cost effective technology (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:51 PM - Re: Cost effective technology (tommyanjelo)
7. 10:52 PM - Re: Cost effective technology (tommyanjelo)
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: Cost effective technology |
Good story and you have a valid point, however, if no one ever tries to build a
better mousetrap, progress would stagnate.
This is an ongoing discussion everywhere, not just these forums. There are those
people who will ALWAYS do things one way because "that's the way its always
been done". Then there are people who will make changes and push the limits
because they think there is a better way.
Sure, the people pushing the limits are bound to have more issues but that is how
progress is made. There are many examples out there, including your hammer
and nail. If progress was stagnant, you would be using a rock to bash that nail
in... :D
If Van hadn't tried to build a better mousetrap, there would only be the Stits
Playboy.
The same can be said for fuel injection versus a carb.
The list goes on and on. Progress is an iterative process, with successes and
failures. Without this process, nothing changes, nothing gets better.
Point is, the people who want to try and make progress happen should not be chastised
for wanting to do so...and neither should the folks who are content with
age old ideas.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481726#481726
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: Cost effective technology |
I work as a software engineer.=C2- Last week, one of the engineers that i
s politically powerfully decided that a project written in C++ needed to be
re-engineered in Python.=C2- His argument was that the existing code had
become "too unwieldy".=C2- The project in question sat between one writt
en in Java and another written in C++.=C2- It was not a part that the cus
tomer would ever reference, or even see, directly.
All I had for said developer was chastisement (with a heavy dose of derisio
n for the managers that allowed for such a knuckleheaded decision....ooops.
sorry, Bob)
The point is, there is change that is progress (faster, cheaper, lighter, s
tronger, etc), and then there is nonsense posing as progress.=C2- Attempt
ing to chase some goal doesn't merit chatisement, but putting a product on
the market and claiming progress with none being demonstrable at least dese
rves to be called out for what it is.
On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:54 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.
com> wrote:
e.com>
Good story and you have a valid point, however, if no one ever tries to bui
ld a better mousetrap, progress would stagnate.
This is an ongoing discussion everywhere, not just these forums.=C2- Ther
e are those people who will ALWAYS do things one way because "that's the wa
y its always been done".=C2- Then there are people who will make changes
and push the limits because they think there is a better way.=C2-
Sure, the people pushing the limits are bound to have more issues but that
is how progress is made.=C2- There are many examples out there, including
your hammer and nail. If progress was stagnant, you would be using a rock
to bash that nail in... :D
If Van hadn't tried to build a better mousetrap, there would only be the St
its Playboy.
The same can be said for fuel injection versus a carb.
The list goes on and on.=C2- Progress is an iterative process, with succe
sses and failures.=C2- Without this process, nothing changes, nothing get
s better.
Point is, the people who want to try and make progress happen should not be
chastised for wanting to do so...and neither should the folks who are cont
ent with age old ideas.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481726#481726
-
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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: Cost effective technology |
At 09:52 AM 7/18/2018, you wrote:
><Rocketman@etczone.com>
>
>Good story and you have a valid point, however, if no one
>ever tries to build a better mousetrap, progress would stagnate.
>
>This is an ongoing discussion everywhere, not just these forums.
>There are those people who will ALWAYS do things one way because
>"that's the way its always been done". Then there are people who
>will make changes and push the limits because they think there is
>a better way.
No argument there . . . and indeed, OBAM aviation is
a fine platform for advancing the state of the art.
But consider the difference in marketing approach
for the successes like Vans, Lancair, Dynon,
>The same can be said for fuel injection versus a carb.
Absolutely. Worked with a software/hardware guy
in Michigan a few years ago on some actuator programs
for TC aircraft. His 'hobby' was adapting/tailoring throttle
body fuel injection systems to other platforms
than automobiles. He had a good handle on a couple
of designs that were almost literally plug/n/play
on a wide range of engines including aircraft.
Without major mechanical changes to the engine
and very modest electrical requirements, he could
bring the benefits of real time mixture control,
easy starting, dynamic spark advance, adjustment
for OAT, etc. etc. to virtually any of the legacy
engines in aviation.
This was a TARGETED product with a deep history
in lessons-learned on all manner of I/C engines.
In other words, advancements to the state of the
art were readily demonstrable . . . including
csot of ownership. ALL components of the system
were under the watchful eye of internal diagnostics
and were BOLT ON PARTS. A product that Charles
Lindbergh could have bolted to the Spirit of St.
Louis and maintained it with little expense beyond
cost of parts.
Products like EXP-Bus are NOT user friendly for
either diagnostics or maintenance. The Bus Manager
offers some attractive marketing hype . . . 'fixes'
things that are not a problem while creating new
problems with FMEA.
>The list goes on and on. Progress is an iterative process, with
>successes and failures. Without this process, nothing changes,
>nothing gets better.
>
>Point is, the people who want to try and make progress happen should
>not be chastised for wanting to do so...and neither should the folks
>who are content with age old ideas.
You bet . . . but with caveats. Don't
bring it to market before it's cost/benefits
ratios are well understood. Don't introduce
new problems in a quest to mitigate old
problems. Don't INVENT new problems by claiming
to take care of 'emergencies' that are more
figment of the un-edcucated imagination than
real . . . especially when those conditions
were already mitigated down to 'non emergencies'
with legacy design goals.
When I designed something for an airplane in
Wichita, I had to present my ideas and solutions
to a panel of peers . . . usually several times . . .
and then test the crap out of it in the lab before
seeking blessings from test pilots. Then I had
to sell it to the FAA.
This process is difficult to mimic in OBAM aviation,
we don't have the infrastructure. But peer review
is easy, FMEA is easy, avoiding over hyped
marketing rhetoric is easy. None of these things
were applied to some of the products we've
been discussing.
So yes, I totally agree that new things should
be encouraged, aided and blessed with liberal
application of lessons learned and TARGETED
to a market that will realize a cost/benefit
improvement.
Pushing that hay baler into the hands of a very
self-sufficient, legacy farmer/rancher was a poor
marketing move.
A large corporate farming operation with a
factory trained maintenance staff looking after
dozens of balers would probably be just fine.
Pushing the mancine off on a guy that has run his ops
with a pair of pliers and a roll of baling wire
for 50 years was not a good move. that baler
did NOT improve his cost/benefits ratio . . .
in fact it COST him four or five thousand
dollars in expense and lost time. How
many of us have that kind of cash around
to meet and unexpected need?
To replace a switch in an EXP Bus takes hours,
unique tools and relatively rare talents.
To replace a toggle switch in an RV takes
a spin-tite, pair of needle nose pliers
and ten minutes.
Bob . . .
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: Cost effective technology |
>The point is, there is change that is progress (faster, cheaper,
>lighter, stronger, etc), and then there is nonsense posing as
>progress. Attempting to chase some goal doesn't merit chatisement,
>but putting a product on the market and claiming progress with none
>being demonstrable at least deserves to be called out for what it is.
YES!
I'm mulling over a family of
alternator controllers that will not
be produced unless I can prove most
if not all of these benefits:
Lower manufacturing cost
More robust design
Lower parts counts
At least equal if not better performance
User friendly for operation, diagnostics,
repair, replacement.
GOLDEN FMEA
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: Cost effective technology |
>The point is, there is change that is progress (faster, cheaper,
>lighter, stronger, etc), and then there is nonsense posing as
>progress. Attempting to chase some goal doesn't merit chatisement,
>but putting a product on the market and claiming progress with none
>being demonstrable at least deserves to be called out for what it is.
YES!
I'm mulling over a family of
alternator controllers that will not
be produced unless I can prove most
if not all of these benefits:
Lower manufacturing cost
More robust design
Lower parts counts
At least equal if not better performance
User friendly for operation, diagnostics,
repair, replacement.
GOLDEN FMEA
Bob . . .
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: Cost effective technology |
Hello everyone, I'm from Kyrgyzstan, I'm building a Pietenpol, help me please.
Details of my problem in the letter, look it please: http://pietenpol.orgfree.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481743#481743
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: Cost effective technology |
Hello everyone, I'm from Kyrgyzstan, I'm building a Pietenpol, help me please.
Details of my problem in the letter, look it please: http://pietenpol.orgfree.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481745#481745
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! --
|