Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
BBS Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Cost effective technology

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:25 pm    Post subject: Cost effective technology Reply with quote

At 07:26 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
Quote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>

Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus managers. When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent back to the manufacturer for repair, if they are still in business. Compare that to conventional wiring when a fuse blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is required to figure out why the fuse blew. But the aircraft is still flyable without that one circuit, which any mechanic can troubleshoot. Fuses are just as easy to install as the electronic box and cost a whole lot less.
Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS screen is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking out the windows and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?


A good question. A friend of mine was offered a 'heck of
a deal" on a new hay baler. $thousands$ in discounts.

[img]cid:7.1.0.9.0.20180717162422.065a5c40(at)aeroelectric.com.1[/img]


The dealer even brought it out and hooked it up to his
tractor some 55 miles from his dealership. I was astounded
at the complexity of this machine compared with the
20 year old JD bailer that was supposed to get retired.

This new machine had cables, sensors, actuators, electronic
control box and a long bundle of wires that routed up to
the cab of the tractor to communicate with a touch-screen
control panel.

The following day (with the dealer having gone home)
several hours were expended trying to figure out how
to get this marvel of agricultural technology to wake
up. It even got the attention of neighboring farmers
who had identical machines. Two days later, the dealer
was back and discovered that a particular but critical
cable assembly was not installed. After fixing that
error, the machine lit up, sang Dixie and said, "Lets
go roll up that hay."

The following week, my friend was loading a new
roll of netting when a cable assembly got tangled
in some moving part and got ripped out of the connector
and broke something else. Dealer came back and opined
that repairs would only take $3,000 worth of parts
and the 'good' news was that they were in stock in
Wichita . . . they would be in tomorrow.

A couple more days later, the machine was back in the
field spitting out thousand pound bales of feed.
Direct losses for the downtime were pretty impressive
not to mention indirect losses for delays in getting
feed out of the field before it got too dry.

I could not help but wonder if his old baler could
not have been refurbished for a whole lot less money.
Better yet, it uses technology that was well understood,
spare parts only 20 miles way and talents to repair
were in possession of the owner!

The fine art of striving for market success goes
far deeper than getting excited about having incorporated
the latest gee-whiz features. More than once, I've often
stared at the screen on my 'smart phone' wishing
I had more control over what it did well . . . and
being able to dump what I don't need (about 75% of
what's installed).

Someone once opined, "Sometimes the best way to
drive a nail is with a hammer."


Bob . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List



144069b.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  166.27 KB
 Viewed:  205 Time(s)

144069b.jpg


Back to top
Rocketman1988



Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:52 am    Post subject: Re: Cost effective technology Reply with quote

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... Very Happy

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.


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
echristley(at)att.net
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:20 am    Post subject: Cost effective technology Reply with quote

I work as a software engineer. Last week, one of the engineers that is politically powerfully decided that a project written in C++ needed to be re-engineered in Python.  His argument was that the existing code had become "too unwieldy".  The project in question sat between one written in Java and another written in C++. It was not a part that the customer would ever reference, or even see, directly.
All I had for said developer was chastisement (with a heavy dose of derision 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, 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.


On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:54 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> wrote:



--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)>

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... Very Happy

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

http://www.matr===================

http://wiki.matronic=======================
</; &nb -->


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:25 am    Post subject: Cost effective technology Reply with quote

At 09:52 AM 7/18/2018, you wrote:
Quote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>

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,



Quote:
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.


Quote:
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 . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:32 am    Post subject: Cost effective technology Reply with quote

Quote:
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 . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:22 pm    Post subject: Cost effective technology Reply with quote

Quote:
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 . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
tommyanjelo



Joined: 18 Jul 2018
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Cost effective technology Reply with quote

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


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tommyanjelo



Joined: 18 Jul 2018
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Cost effective technology Reply with quote

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


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:03 pm    Post subject: Cost effective technology Reply with quote

At 10:08 PM 7/20/2018, you wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com>

Great discussion and certainly worth consideration of the points alluded to here and specifically mentioned on the VAF forum thread. I do believe if I ever built another EAB airframe, I would be up to the challenge of doing the wiring to cover my systems and intended usage with way more insight than what I had prior to this first project.

Ohhh that we were born with hindsight . . . but
not all is lost. Your project is not 'crippled'
or even less 'safe' . . . you are 100x more likely
to experience a bad day in the cockpit for reasons
OTHER than having made a less than elegant design
decision on the electrics.

For now, my system is what it is, and the aircraft will be operated with consideration for the fault/failure potential. The risk I accept can be somewhat mitigated through thorough and particular attention to maintenance, favorable flight conditions, conservative operational usage and pilot training/proficiency. Eventually, I may even retrofit this airframe with a different engine and/or panel which would allow me to redesign the electrical system as well.

There you go! The understanding garnered from these
discussions will do more for reduction of risk
than all the advice in the world . . . advice
can be contradictory, mis-applied and/or just
plain wrong. Understanding is what lets you
sift the sands of the whole and save back
the nuggets of knowledge that keep the wheels
on your wagon (or should I say wings on your
airplane?).

I'm recalling some discussions we had here
on the list about some plug-n-play, gee-whizz
boxes nearly 20 years ago . . .

https://goo.gl/L1U42b

https://goo.gl/bMJVeL

There was a time that I was mulling over the
notion of offering a po' boys version of that
Cessna gee-whiz box I cited a few days ago . . .
but after sifting through the options and
identifying the ways my own path to electric
Nirvana failed to cover the kinds of options
addressed in the z-figures, I pitched the project.



Bob . . .


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group