On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 09:53:07 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Bernie wrote: "During the Civil War,
every citizen soldier had his own musket, each of a slightly different
caliber, so they had to cast their own bullets, and repairing them was
difficult due to lack of interchangeability. Mass manufacturing
methods not that long afterwards resulted in rifles being crafted in
great numbers with precision, which drove the cost down and the
deadliness of warfare up."

Buncha crap, Bernie. Muskets and ammunition were mass produced during the civil war period. I read
your post with some interest until I got to that part. It totally denigrated anything else you had
to say. The "one bad apple in the barrel thing", don't you know.

Bob Swinney

Bob..many State Militia groups brought their own weapons, from
repeaters to Enfields.

While its indeed true that the Springfield was the Standard arm...

Bernies comments were more true about the Revolutionary war period
however...

Eli Whitney was the father of "weapons interchangability"

Gunner





"Carl M" wrote in message
...
On Aug 1, 8:28 pm, Christopher Tidy
wrote:
Hi folks,

This question came into my head a few days ago. I often hear people
suggesting that the latest vehicle engines last longer and are more
trouble-free than older engines. But I also hear people saying, just as
often, "They don't make them like they used to".

I was looking at a Dennis Z Type lawnmower a few days ago. I am hoping
to acquire one. For those who don't know, this is a legendary machine. I
think its engine is probably the best lawnmower engine ever made. It has
forced lubrication and an oil filter, complete with a passage for oil
through the crankshaft, and was introduced in 1922.

Now it's possible that one might look back at older products and view
them as being superior because all the poor quality products from the
era wore out and were replaced. It's also likely that the answer to the
question will depend on the type of engine you look at, and the quality
of construction. But I'll leave it as a general question, as I'm
interested to hear anyone's experience.

I get the impression that perhaps engine technology is moving in two
opposing directions. On the one hand, improving technology such as
better lubricants, filtration and bearing materials, are resulting in
components lasting longer. But on the other hand, the whole industry
appears to be moving towards less maintainable engines. Engines which
are wholly dependent on electronics, sometimes with coated rather than
lined cylinders. Engines which are difficult for anyone to maintain at
home. Perhaps this is why I don't hear people talk about replacing
piston rings, or having crankshafts regound anymore? Or perhaps these
parts last for the lifetime of the vehicle?

I'd be interested to hear people's opinions. I'd also be very interested
to see data comparing wear rates in modern and old engines, if anyone
knows where I can find such data.

Best wishes,

Chris Tidy


I tend to agree with you to some degree, however, as consumers our
expectations have gone up over the years. It wasn't that long ago
that cars were worn out at 20K miles, and that automobiles came with
instructions that told you how to repair the babbit bearings in the
engines yourself. Now, a car with 200K miles is normal, even barely
broken in. Machines made by craftsman who understood the fine details
of quality machinery were rare and highly sought after, as they had
under one hat engineering, design, assembly, and maintenance skills,
but they couldn't make them very fast or very cheap. Now these skills
are most commonly segregated to individuals, with less and less having
all those abilities at one time. Competition has ensured that quality
and endurance are important, as well as cost. Modern automotive
engines are designed and can be easily reproduced with tolerances
unattainable not that long ago, and the tight tolerances, combined
with carefully worked out assembly processes ensure that the cost
comes down with little to no loss in quality.
That said, all engineering design is a compromise. Quite often a
lower quality part is selected for a car or other machinery because it
keeps the cost down. Rarely do we notice these things, and when we
do, it's often a big deal. If money is not object, someone somewhere
will build you the machine you want with the very best components that
you want, but it will cost a lot of money, be hard to find parts for,
and only used by limited numbers of people. We as consumers also have
to make a compromise based on our needs, wants, and wallet, and while
I'd like to have a Bugatti in the driveway, I don't have the money or
a practical need for it. I just need a car I can rack up the miles on
with low maintenance (as compared to my Triumphs...) and do everything
else I need it to do.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr