Post League Eridani

tlb wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Honorverse industry isn't as hard to update as terrestrial industry has been, but there are certain parallels. For example, the British steel and shipbuilding industries suffered badly after WWI because they had such an enormous existing capacity in both fields. They couldn't/were unwilling to shut down existing foundries and fabrication sites that were still producing in order to replace them with plant that would produce more quickly, efficiently, and cheaply. Could argue that the same thing happened to the US steel industry in the last few decades of the 20th century.

cthia wrote:Same thing happened to the US auto industry. We were hesitant to invest in robotics to update our assembly lines to equal the quality, reliability and output of the Japanese at much cheaper costs, in the long run. American businesses has to show a profit quarterly, not ten years down the road. Result, government bailouts.

I can understand Robert Woodward's question though. Could the RMNs printers and related tech be superior? The RMNs overall educational system produces a net superior effect across the board. Even Shannon's 'puter screens were inferior. She had to massage them. Haven uses dot matrix printers. LOL

Both Japanese and mainland Europe got to build anew after WWII; one result was that Japanese assembly lines were much more flexible than the ones set up in the USA (or perhaps Britain). Also quality control had become more important (particularly to the Japanese, whose goods were considered inferior) and were easier to implement in the newer factories.

True, and good for them, because their goods was junk. Anything made in Asia at the time was destined for the trash bin. Regardless, a significant uptick in quality was a result of the exacting tolerances of robotics. America could have built new factories, but the cost was prohibitive per immediate return of investment, which was nonexistent. Then there was the fear of both, robots taking jobs and the metric system. Check this out.

runsforcelery wrote:Honorverse industry isn't as hard to update as terrestrial industry has been, but there are certain parallels. For example, the British steel and shipbuilding industries suffered badly after WWI because they had such an enormous existing capacity in both fields. They couldn't/were unwilling to shut down existing foundries and fabrication sites that were still producing in order to replace them with plant that would produce more quickly, efficiently, and cheaply. Could argue that the same thing happened to the US steel industry in the last few decades of the 20th century.

cthia wrote:Same thing happened to the US auto industry. We were hesitant to invest in robotics to update our assembly lines to equal the quality, reliability and output of the Japanese at much cheaper costs, in the long run. American businesses has to show a profit quarterly, not ten years down the road. Result, government bailouts.

I can understand Robert Woodward's question though. Could the RMNs printers and related tech be superior? The RMNs overall educational system produces a net superior effect across the board. Even Shannon's 'puter screens were inferior. She had to massage them. Haven uses dot matrix printers. LOL

tlb wrote:Both Japanese and mainland Europe got to build anew after WWII; one result was that Japanese assembly lines were much more flexible than the ones set up in the USA (or perhaps Britain). Also quality control had become more important (particularly to the Japanese, whose goods were considered inferior) and were easier to implement in the newer factories.

cthia wrote:True, and good for them, because their goods was junk. Anything made in Asia at the time was destined for the trash bin. Regardless, a significant uptick in quality was a result of the exacting tolerances of robotics. America could have built new factories, but the cost was prohibitive per immediate return of investment, which was nonexistent. Then there was the fear of both, robots taking jobs and the metric system.

I as I understand it, Japanese commercial products through the beginning of the post war period were inferior because the military had kept all the high quality goods for their exclusive use. The "junk" perception motivated the enthusiastic adoption of quality control, while it was ignored in the USA. The country wide adoption of QC occurred about a decade before industrial robots were developed. Certainly industrial robots were also enthusiastically adopted, to the extent that Japan is now both a leading manufacturer and a leading user of them.

My brother in law was a perfectionist mechanic and would take a wrench to any car he bought to tighten all the bolts. His first Japanese car was a Datsun Z and to his surprise none of the bolts were loose.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:(original post deleted, because I am interested in only part of Weber's reply)

runsforcelery wrote:
You really don't understand how industrial processes work in the Honorverse. We're talking here about, for example, molecular circuitry, which is identical in essentially every star nation; what matters is how you program the matrix in your individual molycircs. The basic sinews of industry are orbital refineries that produce bulk raw materials which then go to nanotech farms and "foundries" which are actually massive printers.

Is the reason that Haven couldn't duplicate SKM hardware is because its "printers" weren't precise enough?

To which David Weber responded:

runsforcelery wrote:What part of the SKM's hardware are you talking about duplicating? Generally speaking, you're manufacturing components that then are assembled, not just pressing a button and watching completed missiles, for example, emerge from the hopper at the other end of the queue. Well, actually you are but that's because the components are being assembled en route to the other end of the queue, if you see what I mean.


(SNIP)

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:Beowulf was building Apollo components because Haven couldn't. I assume that complete specifications were available in backup storage. I have thought of two reasons:

1) Haven didn't have equipment capable of doing the job.
2) Beowulf had the similar enough gear that they could do the job with minimal programming, while Haven's gear was utterly different and it would had taken many months to recreate the programming.

So, which is it? Or is there a 3rd reason?

There are two reasons. One is that Beowulf had the capacity and at that moment Haven didn't. Haven could have freed up some capacity to devote to it, but not as much as Beowulf already had and they were rationalizing production. Nor coould Haven have freed that capacity as quickly as Beowulf could put the DMs into production. Not all printers are created equal, although I realize I may have given that impression; some are more efficient than others and some are more capable (ie., can print more quickly or print larger items) than others. All of them work at a compromise point amid a bunch of design considerations, and no printer is better than its controlling computers, which is almost always proprietary.

The League (which would include Beowulf) and the SKM/SEM were all at the high end of printer capacity; Haven, with less infrastructure and a considerably less capable set of cyberneticists, operated at a much lower level of efficiency. This is one of the many reasons Manticore could outbuild the PRH throughout the war. At the time missile fabrication was moved to Beowulf, Haven was in the process of catching up but hadn't yet caught up. It would have taken more tweaking for them to handle mass production of fusion-powered MDMs, and the GA decided it made more sense to let them go on doing the stuff they were already set up to do while their higher-end allies did the tricky bits.

In addition, however, there was a second reason that no one really wanted to talk about very much. You may recall that Beth had to pitch a Wintonesque-scale . . . intervention because of a certain unwillingness of admirals who'd just spent the last quarter century or so shooting at each other to share their deepest, darkest military secrets with one another. Getting Apollo into crash production as quick as possible was critical, and Manticore had no issues with trusting Beowulf after so many centuries of close alliance (and intermarriage), so various souls at BuShips found all sorts of reasons for it to make better sense to move it to Beowulf instead of, oh, the Haven System.

Go figure.

cthia wrote:snip...Then there was the fear of both, robots taking jobs and the metric system.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere many years ago that USA bolt/screw threads were changed to metric but the imperial sizes were retained for the bolt heads, this was done so that thousands of mechanics did not have to throw away all their imperial sized wrenches and buy new metric sized wrenches.

George J. Smith wrote:

cthia wrote:snip...Then there was the fear of both, robots taking jobs and the metric system.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere many years ago that USA bolt/screw threads were changed to metric but the imperial sizes were retained for the bolt heads, this was done so that thousands of mechanics did not have to throw away all their imperial sized wrenches and buy new metric sized wrenches.

No, M threads are very different than non-metric threads.

kzt wrote:

George J. Smith wrote:..snip..

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere many years ago that USA bolt/screw threads were changed to metric but the imperial sizes were retained for the bolt heads, this was done so that thousands of mechanics did not have to throw away all their imperial sized wrenches and buy new metric sized wrenches.

No, M threads are very different than non-metric threads.

And when you somehow get dragged into helping a friend that has British vintage motorcycles you discover that threads is a voluminous subject, all the while tearing your hair out...

George J. Smith wrote:

cthia wrote:snip...Then there was the fear of both, robots taking jobs and the metric system.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere many years ago that USA bolt/screw threads were changed to metric but the imperial sizes were retained for the bolt heads, this was done so that thousands of mechanics did not have to throw away all their imperial sized wrenches and buy new metric sized wrenches.

You are mistaken.

Most American mechanics are compelled to own a full set of Metric tools as well as a full set of SAE tools in British measurements. This is why we have such large tool boxes.

Fortunately; the British long ago adopted Metric standard bolts and nuts. The thread profiles are different from SAE thread profiles even when nominal size and thread count are the same.

Unfortunately; the British kept their system of pipe fittings, except with Metric drive interfaces. Even worse, the Japanese adopted the system.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:


You are mistaken.

Most American mechanics are compelled to own a full set of Metric tools as well as a full set of SAE tools in British measurements. This is why we have such large tool boxes.

Fortunately; the British long ago adopted Metric standard bolts and nuts. The thread profiles are different from SAE thread profiles even when nominal size and thread count are the same.

Unfortunately; the British kept their system of pipe fittings, except with Metric drive interfaces. Even worse, the Japanese adopted the system.

All our pipes & fittings are in metric sizes, likewise conduits & cables/wires.

George J. Smith wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:


You are mistaken.

Most American mechanics are compelled to own a full set of Metric tools as well as a full set of SAE tools in British measurements. This is why we have such large tool boxes.

Fortunately; the British long ago adopted Metric standard bolts and nuts. The thread profiles are different from SAE thread profiles even when nominal size and thread count are the same.

Unfortunately; the British kept their system of pipe fittings, except with Metric drive interfaces. Even worse, the Japanese adopted the system.

All our pipes & fittings are in metric sizes, likewise conduits & cables/wires.

Explain that to the Japanese who built my Kubota trackhoe.
Granted it's an older machine but the hydraulic fittings are neither SAE or Metric.

https://www.ring-plug-thread-gages.com/ ... -data.html


https://www.newmantools.com/taps/bsp.htm

George J. Smith wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
You are mistaken.

Most American mechanics are compelled to own a full set of Metric tools as well as a full set of SAE tools in British measurements. This is why we have such large tool boxes.

Fortunately; the British long ago adopted Metric standard bolts and nuts. The thread profiles are different from SAE thread profiles even when nominal size and thread count are the same.

Unfortunately; the British kept their system of pipe fittings, except with Metric drive interfaces. Even worse, the Japanese adopted the system.

All our pipes & fittings are in metric sizes, likewise conduits & cables/wires.

Actually you both are mistaken. Pipe threads and fittings have never truly had a uniform standard for imperial or metric. In short, there were A BILLION standards. Then throw in tapered verses straight and it is enough even today to tear your hair out.

Now add that pipe traditionally has been made from ROLLED or hammered sheet steel. UK/USA/France etc used the Sheet guage or AWG(American Wire Guage) in the USA's case and the French etc also used a "guage" system for hammering out sheet stock and then rolling it and you have one MASSIVE mess on your hands.

This turned out to not be all that bad of a problem as the TOLERANCES for this material were so pathetically wide(poor) that we were able to standardize them today. So weather you label a aheet with AWG, or in mm thickness they are actually the same today which also translates to pipping and fittings. As for the threads of said piping? It is STILL to this day a complete bolloxed up mess on all 3 of the industrialized continents and the poor SOB's on the other 3 have to put up with it... And the truth is there are Very good reasons for keeping both systems as it fits different types of plumbing/piping/fittings, coupler type extremely well depending on the job in question.

So, uh yea, that happened.... talked about pipe guage on an HV forum... never saw that one happening...

EDIT: PS: Many in Europe use the USA wire guage system as it is easier as it uses integer values instead of actual thickness of copper... except stranded is cross section so.. with its WIDE tolerances than remembering decimal fractions of a mm with WIDE tolerances and the end result is NEVER the "mm" it claims. Why German electrical tools like Knippix has both markings for AWG and mm.