---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 07/18/18: 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:52:59 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cost effective technology From: "Rocketman1988" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:20:42 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:25:15 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cost effective technology At 09:52 AM 7/18/2018, you wrote: > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:32:57 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:22:26 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:51:09 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cost effective technology From: "tommyanjelo" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:52:02 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cost effective technology From: "tommyanjelo" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.