BS: Technological Dead-ends

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Neighmond
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 02:35 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: john f weldon
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 07:47 AM

If by clockwork, you mean a simple wind-up spring, I agree. If you mean an elaborate device that requires dozens of tiny spinning wheels on diamond hubs, thus costing thousands, when more accurate digital time-keeping chips are available for pennies, the clockwork is simply a waste of human time and money.
Like the sedan chair."


My, my! Someone has been to the watchmaker's and didn't like it a'tall! Too bad you didn't ask them to explain the mechanics of the watch so you could at least have that right.

The average mechanical movement has only eight wheels, the hubs of which are steel, NOT diamond. The bearings are jeweled, but even then only five are usually jeweled, and jeweled with synthetic ruby or sapphire. Diamond is only used as end stones (four at the very most, 1mm or less across, )and even then sparingly. As of last fall, the value of an unset watch jewel averaged to $6.50; the rest is the labor to fit it.

As for "costing thousands" I can sell you all of the mechanical gents' watches you want with a jeweled lever movement for nowhere near a thousand. Hell-I can sell you a real nice pocket watch for pretty cheap too.

Finally, I wouldn't have a digital for any price. I can read my plain-Jane old Hamilton pocket watch across the room, and it's easy to work on, doesn't contribute any waste with dead batteries, and I sure as hell don't need anything more accurate than .2 sec/day which is its mean rate.

As for the Bulova Accutron, it was a transitive technology, a bridge between the mechanical timepiece and the modern day quartz-controlled watches.

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Neighmond
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 02:59 PM

he last post was incomplete. Here is the whole thing.

"Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: john f weldon
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 07:47 AM

If by clockwork, you mean a simple wind-up spring, I agree. If you mean an elaborate device that requires dozens of tiny spinning wheels on diamond hubs, thus costing thousands, when more accurate digital time-keeping chips are available for pennies, the clockwork is simply a waste of human time and money.
Like the sedan chair."


My, my! Someone has been to the watchmaker's and didn't like it a'tall! Too bad you didn't ask them to explain the mechanics of the watch so you could at least have that right.

The average mechanical movement has only eight wheels, the hubs of which are steel, NOT diamond. The bearings are jeweled, but even then only five are usually jeweled, and jeweled with synthetic ruby or sapphire. Diamond is only used as end stones (four at the very most, 1mm or less across, )and even then sparingly. As of last fall, the value of an unset watch jewel averaged to $6.50; the rest is the labor to fit it.

As for "costing thousands" I can sell you all of the mechanical gents' watches you want with a jeweled lever movement for nowhere near a thousand. Hell-I can sell you a real nice pocket watch for pretty cheap too.

It wasn't too long ago that quartz watches had to be regulated for each wearer by trimming the capacitors, which was every bit a nuisance as adjusting the hairspring and balance wheel of a mechanical watch.

As for the Bulova Accutron, it was a transitive technology, a bridge between the mechanical timepiece and the modern day quartz-controlled watches. It was the second wave of timepieces where the escapement drove the gear train, instead of the other way 'round. The electrically impulsed balance wheel movements were the first, and Hamilton Watch Comany of Lancaster PA made them in the fifties. The Accutron used an IC and tuning fork to maintain a frequency, which was a vast improvement over the balance wheel rate wise, as well as having less moving parts. The real problem with the Accutrons was tuning forks and indexing wires/jewels/wheels wearing out or getting damaged.


Finally, I wouldn't have a digital for any price. I can read my plain-Jane old Hamilton pocket watch across the room, and it's easy to work on, doesn't contribute any waste with dead batteries, and I sure as hell don't need anything more accurate than .2 sec/day which is its mean rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Rowan
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 04:38 PM

This thread demonstrates one of the lovely aspects of Mudcat. A forum grounded on music putatively from the folk, and here we are in the BS, below the line, detailing escapements, electronics, logarithms, differences between the Merck Index and the Merck Diagnostic Index and how one might define 'reminiscences'.

And then McGrath spoils it all by lumping concertinas into the category of "dead end". Sigh!

Now, if he'd said "Linhof 6x9 limited movement press cameras using 70mm film" instead, I'd have believed him. I own both but I only still use the concer.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 05:37 PM

Rowan -

The simple answer to "What is a technological dead end?" appears to be "Anything I've bought."

Computers are an obvious one, especially laptops. My "working perfectly" laptop that needed a memory upgrade to go to the next generation OS before it was a year old encountered "that memory chip is not made any more."

My digital camera uses the then (4 years ago) most popular memory card, which is now obsolete and replacements (or spares) unavailable.

About three months after I upgraded my camera to a brand new Canon A-1, partly because of the vast selection of available lenses, they announced a completely new and entirely incompatible line of lenses that I can't mount on mine, and mine won't mount on any of the new ones.

Within 30 days after I signed the mortgage on my camper, I visited the maker's website and found a big sign saying "MODEL DISCONTINUED, NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE" (and I've still got a years worth of payments left).

If I buy it, it will DISAPPEAR.

Especially if I like it.

(But I never bought a BetaMax.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 06:47 PM

"If I buy it, it will DISAPPEAR."

I hope you win the lottery, John, and if you do make sure to buy a 4x4. And I'm sure we could come up with a long list of other splendid purchases...

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Rowan
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 01:15 AM

McGrath, one of the first vacation jobs I had as a uni student was with Tattersalls, the people who ran the original lotteries in Victoria, Oz. They transferred a barrel containing 150,000 "marbles" (they're actually wooden, as glass ones disintegrate and metal ones act as a ball mill) from Tasmania to Victoria and wanted to use the barrel (but only 100,000 marbles) in various lotteries. Victoria's gaming legislation required the Auditor General to inspect the contents of such barrels and ensure there was one, and only one, of every numbered marble.

So I, along with 11 other uni students and 12 Tatts ladies, sorted out all 150,000 marbles in consecutive order from 1 to 100,000. I can visualise, probably better than most, exactly how many chances you have of getting "the winning marble" and I've never entered a lottery (well, not that sort) since.

I'd wish John the chance that he purchased something that had his lifetime's duration of usefulness, but it sounds like he has an extraordinary collection of such things already, in addition to the ones that are technological dead ends. "Beam compasses" indeed! And he's probably got a bottle of pounce hidden away as well!

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Grab
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 08:32 AM

GTO thyristors

Still in use, or were about 10 years back, and I see no reason why it'd be otherwise. The branch of Alstom I worked for used them as the switches for their high-voltage DC converters - for the uninitiated, think of the wall-wart for converting mains AC to DC and the inverter for converting your car battery DC to mains AC, and then scale the whole lot up to power-station size!

A4 XY plotters

You'll find quite a few electronics hobbyists making these from scratch, because they're better than printers, and you can't buy them now for less than a grand. I used to have an A3 one I got from a friend, but it stopped working and I never needed it enough to make it worth repairing. It went through three houses with me, but sadly I had to face facts and junk it when we moved to the fourth.

gas pokers

Hey, those are still around - two quid down the market, anywhere you care to look.

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 09:25 AM

The Rolph Harris Stylophone
and the bigger equivalent
The Moog

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Grab
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:49 AM

And let's be controversial here. Some musical technological dead-ends...

* Woodwind instruments
* Brass instruments
* The violin, viola and cello
* The classical guitar
* Almost the steel-string guitar

Before people reach for big sticks and brickbats, let's define a technological dead-end. To my mind, a technological dead-end is a point where no further progress is possible. The items might still be around, but their design isn't improved on any further. Which gives a clue to where I'm going with this...

Classical musicians simply *won't* play instruments that don't look like the ones made by Stradivarius or Guarani or Torres, no matter how good they sound. Luthiers being ingenious folk, there will always be people who try something different, and you might even find locally-popular variations like Hardanger fiddles, but they never make it into mainstream acceptance. This halts the technology at an arbitrary dead-end.

Steel-string guitars are a bit better off, but even with those there's a serious dead-end to worry about, namely CF Martin and co having set the "accepted" shape of a steel-string guitar. If it doesn't look like a "traditional" steel-string guitar, chances are that it won't sell as well. Luckily there are more steel-string guitarists prepared to favour their ears over their preconceptions, but still most steel-string guitars are using the same Martin construction as 70+ years ago.

And for woodwind and brass, there's only so many configurations of tube and valve which produce different tones or different operating methods, and nothing has changed majorly since Adolphe Sax.

So what *is* still in active development? ("Active" as in "new instruments adopted by the mainstream in the last 50 years", to define terms.) Well, acoustically the mandolin family is the only stringed-instrument group that's had any new types of instruments for years. Double-basses (uniquely amongst the violin family) have some adaptation going on to tailor them for different requirements, mainly I think because everyone acknowledges that a double-bass has big design flaws ("big" being one of those design flaws!). Electrics obviously, although even there you've mainly got a choice of single-coil or humbucker and all amps are trying to sound like a valve amp - not that these are bad sounds, but there are other sounds out there. And after that we're looking at pure-electronic music - synths and the like. Sure, there *are* different designs around for various instruments, but none that show any real prospect of dislodging the status quo.

The one major innovation in all of this is production-line assembly, which has radically reduced the cost and improved the quality of almost all instruments. Still and all, that's just automating a manual process - the end result isn't any different except in having better quality control.

I'm not saying that the "Golden Age" instruments (and it's very telling that Martin actually do call their instruments that) are somehow defective, I'm just saying that they're not necessarily the pinnacle of perfection. It's a bit like the world has arrived at the musical equivalent of the '57 Corvette and said, "Right, that's beautiful, so we don't need anything else."

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Rowan
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:23 PM

Graham, you've suddenly illuminated (for me anyway) the reason why there are so many Harley Davidsons around; their owners (and the wannabees) haven't yet realised that the 1920s are no longer the pinnacle of good engineering.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 05:26 PM

Brass instruments? Like trumpets, perhaps, hmmm?

Well, I suppose that it is a technological dead-end when you've reached perfection.

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 06:34 PM

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I suppose in biological term any successful species is a "biological dead end".

Subject: RE: BS: Technological Dead-ends
From: Grab
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 08:18 AM

Maybe I don't know enough about brass instruments, Rapaire, but I didn't know there was still significant development on them. Trumpets aren't exactly new, anyway. Still, OK, strike them off if there's people still working on new designs for them. Woodwind though - what's new there?

The problem with "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is that you spend the next 200 years driving a 57 Corvette instead of perhaps coming up with the GT40, Cobra, Countach or F355. Or even a Ford Focus, which will comfortably outperform the Corvette. As Rowan says, Harleys (and Corvettes) are seriously pretty - but in terms of performance they're seriously deficient in comparison to modern vehicles that have had 50 years of incremental improvement from people who *were* prepared to fix it.

When you reach perfection, then fine - there's nothing more to do. But look at violins, for example. Could the crappy pointy edges be replaced with guitar-style bindings which would properly the top and back? Sure, but Stradivarius didn't do it so we won't. Could the neck be thinned and the instrument lightened with strategic use of carbon-fibre? Yes, but S. didn't have carbon-fibre so we won't use it. Could we replace the truly horrible kludge of friction tuning pegs with lightweight geared tuners? Yes, but... Could we get rid of the time-consuming bent-side construction and use straight sides? Yes, but... Could we replace the F-hole ports with a more sensible design? Yes, but...

Graham.