> On 8/4/08 10:33 AM, in article
> 567e6cd9-e710-40cd-a1ba-697dda0b0...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com, "Bret
>
>
>
>
>
> Cahill" aol.com> wrote:

>> Few have the judgment to know what is cost effective without doing a
>> spread sheet, especially when considering untried technology.

>

>> Issues that don't seem all that important can have surprising effects
>> on the overall cost.

>

>> Every other industry hires industrial engineers, basically financial
>> accountants with an engineering background, to check out the cost
>> effectiveness of new technology. � Any idea that comes up in house is
>> run by the IEOR dept. and gets a thumbs up or down.

>

>> State university extension centers have profs who study farm
>> economics, but they can't be expected to work every day with inventors
>> who haven't made up their minds.

>

>> More than a vague idea is required.

>

>> One poster recently drove everyone crazy on a Stirling group with his
>> vague idea concerning an unconcentrated solar roof engine. �He framed
>> the debate claiming we couldn't prove it wouldn't be cost effective.
>> This was true because he never gave us anything except a vague idea so
>> we never had any numbers. �I responded in kind with a lot of vague
>> generalities, i. e., roofing materials were the cheapest stuff ever
>> extracted from the earth yet roofing material still costs several
>> dollars /ft^2 installed, that cheap materials don't mean a cheap
>> engine because the materials in a gas turbine are cheaper on a per
>> watt basis than the materials in the penny/watt ICE, etc.

>

>> To get started float a very few definite ideas and then modify and add
>> and drop as necessary. �If someone raises a spread sheet �issue
>> without doing the spreadsheet, then no conclusions can be made.

>

>> The really hard part of inventing is to have the judgment so you don't
>> have to evaluate an infinite number of designs.

>

>> I'm currently looking for a Theory of Unnecessary Mechanical
>> Complexity:

>

>> If it has more than one moving part it's a bad design . . .

>

>> If it requires more machine work than a drill press it's a bad
>> design . . .

>

>> If it requires parts other than steel balls, pipes, bars or springs,
>> it's a bad design . . .

>

>> If it requires 3-D CAD it's a bad design . . .

>

>> KISS �Keep It Simple Stupid

>

>> Bret Cahill

>
> Your Project