----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People have also become more mobile & it's a lot easier to just leave the old thing behind instead of paying to ship it.
My old washing machine (c1992) finally gave up the ghost. The new one cost about the same but the new one has so many new features that I had to read the operating manual three times before I actually used it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4/20/16, Craig Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Off-topic but incredible!
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 2:38 PM
Yes, but
part of the reason people are willing to buy
"disposable" dishwashers is that they expect that,
when the time comes to replace it, they will be able to get
a better one for less money. The trend in consumer
appliances has been "rising features, falling
prices" for a long time, and people build that into
their buying decisions. If appliance technology and costs
had been stable for a century, consumers might shift their
spending toward more durable options, and manufacturers
would follow suit with their offerings.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at
2:22 PM, Peter H Brenton <xxxxxx@mit.edu>
wrote:
[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).
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.
[relurk]
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://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://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a
