RE: [TML] Off-topic but incredible! Phil Pugliese 21 Apr 2016 16:44 UTC

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4/20/16, Peter H Brenton <xxxxxx@mit.edu> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [TML] Off-topic but incredible!
 To: "xxxxxx@simplelists.com" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 2:22 PM

 [delurk] I believe
 we make cheap products more to target the market for a
 particular price point than for reasons of technological or
 fashion obsolescence.
   
 Take a company that
 makes dishwashers, for example.  The marketing
 department determines from research that the best price to
 sell the dishwashers for is $400
  per unit, and the accounting department says they need a
 margin of about 25%, so the target cost for the unit is $325
 (25% of 320 = $80, $320 + 80 = $400).  More margin
 means better profit, so the engineers and designers, being
 superstars, trim the materials
  cost and shortcut a few component manufacturing processes
 to get the cost down even further.  They do this by
 using 8 years as a target lifetime.  That means the
 impeller in the pump can be made from cheap plastic instead
 of steel, the rotating sprayer is
  plastic instead of stainless steel, the bearing on the
 sprayer can be a simple nylon bushing since it’s pretty
 light now, etc.  The fact is, if they made the parts
 all from high end materials, then the thing would last 40
 years, but would cost $2,000 and no
  one would buy it since there’s another model for $400 on
 the market, and the company would go out of business (anyone
 ever have a Kirby Vacuum cleaner?  I still have my
 Mom’s bought in about 1978).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I also have an old 'inherited' vacuum cleaner.
Problem is finding someone to repair it.
Used to be there were all these 'FixIt' shops, cubbyholed into strip malls & the like, run by old codgers who seemed to know everything about old electric motors, etc. But they're pretty much all gone now.

========================================================
   
 Military hardware is
 another matter (as exemplified by the B52s), although it can
 happen that the lowest bidder cheaps out, I’d bet the
 Imperium makes it’s
  warships out of stern stuff precisely so that longevity is
 high.  The technological stagnation means that mothball
 fleets or simply older vessels that have been refitted (to
 replace worn out components, not especially for the tech
 upgrades) are still very
  effective units at a bargain price relative to a new built
 from scratch vessel.  Similar things apply to ground
 hardware. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Interestingly enough this coincides w/ the 18th century.

Navies would keep ships laid up (in 'ordinary' I believe) for decades.

Same w/ firearms. The UK used to store large numbers of muskets for long periods of time.

I always wondered just how many ship were stored in all those IN Depot systems.

Esp since the 'Long War' (3FW & SolRimWar) was fought at TL14 & all those ships were replaced over the next century as the IN transitioned to TL15 in it's regular sqds.

===================================================

   
   
   
 From: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 [mailto:xxxxxx@simplelists.com]
 On Behalf Of Craig Berry

 Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 4:54 PM

 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com

 Subject: Re: [TML] Off-topic but
 incredible!
   

 Our current western
 industrial society tends to build cheap disposable tech,
 specifically because our rate of tech progress makes things
 obsolete by the time they would typically need repair. In a
 society more like the Third Imperium, where
  both societies and general tech levels are stable on the
 scale of many centuries, you might see more emphasis being
 put on rugged, maintainable equipment. Brin touches on this
 in his Uplift series.

   

 On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at
 1:21 PM, Greg Chalik <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 I thought quite a few times about what happens to older
 TL equipment in Traveller. Obsolete may have a different
 meaning on different worlds.

 Also, its a myth that tinkering with old technology can
 produce a better capability. In general, a design would cost
 up to 200% to go through a redesign that changed its use
 requirement even 10%. This option is the least viable, and
 usually the last option
  taken when nothing else is available.
 Cheers

 Greg

 On 21/04/2016 5:55 AM,
 "Joseph Paul" <xxxxxx@sbcglobal.net>
 wrote:

 Dale Brown wrote
 :"Flight of the Old Dog", a tale of obsolescence
 to the rescue featuring the 'Buff'.

 ObTrav: Aggressor forces are surprised by a spirited defense
 lead by supposedly obsolete vehicles from a military grave
 yard that has been raided for a couple of generations by the
 descendants of a lost Planetary Army that have tinkered them
 into superior performance.
  Think 'muscle cars with teeth' and yes they do
 maneuver exercises with them and shooting competitions.

 Joseph Paul

 By My Hand Designs LLC

 4221 N Park Ave

 Indianapolis, IN 46205

 317-931-0561

 On 4/20/2016 1:10 PM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list)
 wrote:
 This email was sent from
 yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via
 email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com)
 has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message
 follows:

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Now here's something from the 'Defense Industry
 Daily' n/l that almost sounds impossible!

 "Pratt and Whitney has maintained that they can develop
 a TF33 upgrade package that will keep Boeing's B-52
 bomber flying until the 2040s. The eight engine bomber has
 kept the same TF33 engine since its induction in 1952, but
 high fuel consumption had the USAF
  looking at potential re-engine options. With oil prices
 dropping dramatically, the program was dropped; but P&W
 are still looking at improvements for the TF33 that will
 keep it on-wing, and allow the air force to reduce their
 maintenance costs."

 These planes have been in service so long ('H"
 models were built about '60-'64) that the authors
 seem unaware that only the 'H" models had the TF33
 turbofan. Earlier models had turbojets. The
 'fanjets' gave the 'H' a much greater range
 than the earlier versions
  & were more powerful.

 Still, I find it amazing that those planes could still be
 flying past the age of 75 years old!

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -----

 The Traveller Mailing List

 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml

 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com

 To unsubscribe from this list please goto

 http://archives.simplelists.com

 -----

 The Traveller Mailing List

 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml

 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com

 To unsubscribe from this
 list please goto
 http://archives.simplelists.com

 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml

 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com

 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 http://archives.simplelists.com

   

 --

 Craig Berry (http://google.com/+CraigBerry)

 "Eternity is in love with the productions of
 time." - William Blake

 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml

 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com

 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 http://archives.simplelists.com

 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a