NavList:

   

Reply

I have made a dozen hand made recreations using the same scales as for
the flat Bygrave and they are difficult to make come out right and I
have had to abandon many and start over again. But they work well in
the end and are easier to read than the flat version. That is the
advantage of the flat one, that it is so easy and inexpensive to make
even if it is a little more difficult to use.

gl

On Jun 17, 7:28�am, Brad Morris  wrote:
> Hi Gary
>
> I have toyed with the idea of constructing some other mechanical objects 
which have little modern utility, but remain interesting in their own right. 
�Developing a set of prints and manufacturing the parts in anticipation of 
orders is a tremendous outlay of cash. �And if the orders don't come (a very 
reasonable outcome) you are stuck. �On the other hand, if the orders come, 
you need sufficient numbers to account for the labor injected and then a 
profit. �This is fundamentally what has stopped me from proceeding, 
economics. �Probably the same reason that Ken does not think it viable 
either.
>
> Consider this, while the Bygrave (and all its variants) still function, it 
will never surpass a programmable electronic calculator. �The only reason it 
exists is that electronic calculators did not at the time. �Yes, it is 
relatively fast, but not as fast as a calculator. �Nor a computer. �The 
electronics have obsoleted all of these mechanical calculators. When doing 
critical work, when was the last time you didn't generate and check your 
mathematics via electronics.
>
> Who uses a typewriter anymore? �Still works, and Christopher Latham Sholes' 
invention changed the way we communicate. �We still use his keyboard layout, 
just look down! �But is it commercially viable? �Alas, no. �The same will be 
said of a modern reproduction Bygrave.
>
> --------------------
>
> All that being said, would I buy a new Bygrave (hopefully with the MHR-1 
locking mechanism)? �Absolutely. �Then my antique can go into the hands of 
collectors who will pay dearly for it. �I am cognizant that every time I use 
it, just a little bit more is degraded, be it wear or the addition of 
contaminants from my hand. �I wouldn't be worried if it was a new (and 
therefore replaceable) unit. �You could count me as customer #1.
>
> There are other firms that have become viable doing just this. �Lee Nielson 
Toolworks manufactures obsolete Stanley hand planes (for smoothing wood). 
�They have quite the catalog now and have succeeded when Stanley themselves 
said they were done. �Somebody probably told Lee it wasn't viable. �Good 
thing for him he didn't believe it.
>
> Best Regards
> Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NavList@fer3.com [mailto:NavList@fer3.com] On Behalf Of glap...@PACBELL.NET
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:14 PM
> To: NavList@fer3.com
> Subject: [NavList 8662] Re: Manufacture new Bygraves?
>
> I ran the idea past Ken Gebhart and he didn't think it was a viable idea and 
I respect his knowledge of the market for celnav.
>
> gl
>
> "Confidentiality and Privilege Notice
> The information transmitted by this electronic mail (and any attachments) is 
being sent by or on behalf of Tactronics; it is intended for the exclusive 
use of the addressee named above and may constitute information that is 
privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If 
you are not the addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering 
this message to same, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or 
disseminate this electronic mail (or any attachments) or any part thereof. If 
you have received this electronic mail (and any attachments) in error, please 
call us immediately and send written confirmation that same has been deleted 
from your system. Thank you."
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply