|
|
al p wick wrote:
Let's try this word experiment. Our job is to make clocks. Two types are
made. The Alwick 2000 all electronic clock and the billybob100 with 100
mechanical components. Gears, all that traditional stuff. We sell these. At the end of a year, the customers return 1% of the Alwick 2000
electronic clock. Customers return 50% of the Billybob 100 multi gear clocks. Seems gears 2
and 17 bind and it stops working. Which has the higher failure risk? Well the Billybob 100 of course. The
return rate is conclusive evidence. But what if the return rates were the opposite? Which then would be
higher risk? It would be the Alwick 2000. So the point is, that parts count is not the definition of risk. Yes, in
many things they coincide. But you don't get to make that assumption. You
have to compare your theory to the facts.
But that word experiment is way oversimplified and doesn't model the comparison between rotary and piston engines.
Let's make the electronic clock a nuclear powered affair and the watch one of the finest Swiss models. No problems in the first or second year, but which would be the first to start showing signs of wear and degraded performance? Which one would need more and more maintenance? Which one could be expected to run indefinitely without intervention? The simpler one that doesn't have 100 gears wearing out. There is a reason for watches to have super-hard quartz movements. The mechanical complexity multiplies the problems created by out of tolerance parts, which is caused in turn by even the smallest amount of wear.
Let's restate the premise so that we're looking at apples vs apples.
Of two systems, designed properly and to the same quality standards, the simpler one will be more reliable.
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
|
|