>>>> 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.
Here's the topic again. If you are incapable of focusing on this
topic, feel free to start another thread.
>>> 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
