> On Aug 4, 11:56?am, Don Bowey
comcast.net> 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 has a uselessly stupid planner. Fire yourself.
>>>> Which project?
All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I
specifically had in mind, which is your spam/blog/idiocy about farming.
>>>>
>>>> Ask your case worker to provide more of that ADD (attention deficit
>>>> disorder) drug. You cannot stay on topic for more than 2 seconds.
I'd say that's more you problem.
>>>>
>>>> Bret Cahill
>
>
