NavList:

   

Reply

Brad Morris wrote (NavList 9047)


>I would dearly loved to have extended the resolution and scale
>lengths, added in those second scales alluded to in the Bygrave
>patent and etcetera, but I believe the consensus now to be 'copies
>of the MHR-1'.  Note that this is NOT a copy of Bygraves original
>manufacture.  That device suffers from the in-ability to lock the
>reference of the tubes to each other.  Why promulgate that design,
>when the subsequent MHR-1 was clearly superior in manipulation.


Geoffrey responds:

As Gary says, if there is sufficient friction between the tubes there
is no need for a device to lock the tubes. That being the case, I am
not so sure that having such a locking device is "clearly" superior -
but what it does do is complicate the design hugely. It is a
typically German over-engineered response to a rather trivial
problem. Lest this be taken the wrong way, I am not trying to
denigrate the Germans or German engineering here. Far from it, I have
great admiration for the quality and inventiveness of German
engineering. But there is a tendency in German engineering culture
toward engineering for the sake of engineering rather than to solve
problems as easily and efficiently as possible. In this case, adding
a bit of friction between the tubes is clearly easier than
incorporating a locking device.

There is one aspect of the MHR-1 which is clearly (there is that word
again) superior to the Bygrave, and that is the use of a tube with a
cursor window instead of that rather delicate little spike which
decorates the Bygrave.

Geoffrey Kolbe


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply