300 kW EV Tractor vs 400 hp Diesel

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:33:28 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

LOL!

Huge.

Cite?

Show your calculations.

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoplexy#Non-medical_usage

JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

re cables to power electric tractors...

see ďż˝"center pivot irrigation"

If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
tractor.

Mark

ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ There's a world of difference in the power requirements. ďż˝ Center
pivot motors are three phase 480 in the U.S. �The older ones used either
a single one horsepower motor or a horse and a half motor. �The newer
ones use motors half that size. �The older ones had 10 AWG Cu in the
span cable to power the pivots that were 1/4 mile long. �The newer ones
can get by with 12 AWG Cu to power the motors.

I'm sorry you missed my point.

My point is not about the amount of �power needed to run the
irrigators vs a tractor... ďż˝ My point was, if a machine can be
designed to distribute WATER through a PIPE �to a large circular area
like that, then a similar machine can be designed to distribute a
power cable to a tractor over a similarly large area.

That was exactly my reasoning last summer when the all-in-one pivot
idea was first introduced.

If they _already_ have the structure in place then they might as well
go all the way.

Then someone posted the speed is only 2 revolutions per day. Big
irrigator structures don't move very fast so either you buy or rent a
lot of tractors or you take your time.

This might not be an issue if it's automated. A radial drive
mechanism could plow a spiral field 24/7 or off peak/7. The illegal
crackdown is affecting farm labor costs in the SW, now $9.50/hr +
overtime.

The pivots will lose some land in the center but since they are
fallowing land anyway, they might as well go to an efficient irrigator
and fallow the land they cannot reach with a super pivot. Then
airline passengers will see a lot of green rings at 50,000 ft.

The linear irrigators would solve the lost land problem but would
require a control system to prevent binding or jamming.

To determine the size of the inner circle the spread sheet would have
to take into account any higher productivity and water savings/
cultivated land and labor savings if automated.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

see ?"center pivot irrigation"

If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
tractor.

I posted the "super pivot" on sci.energy last summer. �The idea was to
get rid of the tractor altogether, just keep the wheels motor and the
impliments.

A conventional pivot moves pretty slow so the super pivot could have
several concentric areas so the tangential velocity wouldn't vary too
much from the outer "tip speed" to the inner "boss."

A poster claiming to be from Nebraska said a conventional pivot sells
for $45,000, a pretty good deal considering the distance it spans. �In
something like a berry field it would pay for itself in a matter of
months.

A pivot, however, requires flat land and some of the square field is
"wasted." �Moreover, a grid-battery tractor is the cheapest way to get
the foot in the E feld door.

One wire.

One battery.

One tractor with the diesel replaced with an electric motor.

Do that first _then_ you can get fancy.

---
So get off your fat, lazy ass and do it instead of running your mouth.

Cite?

Show your calculations.

Totally huge.

 

[Bret Cahill]

LOL!

Huge.

Cite?

Show your calculations.

 

[Bret Cahill]

I can't even get UP to save $2.5 billion a year in diesel by
electrifying their main line in the desert.

How long is the line ?

LA to Houston or New Orleans, < 2000 miles.

Any idea how much it costs to electrifiy a line ?

Anything less than $1 million a mile would pay for itself in a year
assuming fuel costs remain the same.

Of course, no one believes post peak oil will not contiune to spiral.

Before UP can have the line electrified the savings will be 10 billion
a year and the one year payback rate will be $4million a mile.

That's $800/foot.

For a 5 year payback it's thousands of dollars/foot . . .

The RR is subject to some Congressional oversight. It'd be pretty
sorry for congress to have to tell them how to cut costs, although
this sometimes happens.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

LOL!

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Jul 30, 9:46 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

I can't even get UP to save $2.5 billion a year in diesel by
electrifying their main line in the desert.
How long is the line ?

LA to Houston or New Orleans, < 2000 miles.

Any idea how much it costs to electrifiy a line ?

Anything less than $1 million a mile would pay for itself in a year
assuming fuel costs remain the same.

Of course, no one believes post peak oil will not contiune to spiral.

Before UP can have the line electrified the savings will be 10 billion
a year and the one year payback rate will be $4million a mile.

That's $800/foot.

For a 5 year payback it's thousands of dollars/foot . . .

The RR is subject to some Congressional oversight. It'd be pretty
sorry for congress to have to tell them how to cut costs, although
this sometimes happens.

Bret Cahill

There is more to electrifying the line than putting up poles and
stringing wires.

The distances require that the there are seperate transmission lines
and feeders. For a 2000 mile length, you are looking at a 500kV line
with regular substations to step it down to 100kV, so the transformers
in the locomotives do not have to go directly from 500kV to the 1320
volts that the locomotives run their motors at (1320 is a guess, but
the range will be 660V to, at most, 3000V[an unreasonably large
value]). Insulation lifetime favors going for lower voltages.

It would be nice if the feeders over the tracks could be at the motor
voltage, but that would have each unit in the train drawing between
750A at 3000V and 3400A at 660V, so each unit will need to have its
own onboard power substation-- those things cost money. A reasonable
first step is to put the motor-voltage feeders over railyards and
urban tracks so that a cheap add-on to existing locomotives will allow
them to save on fuel where it is cheap to feed them electricity from
the grid.

I am apalled that you assume that the people running the UP are
complete idiots who never ask themselves if there is a cheaper way to
run a railroad. I would be surprised if they did not continually do
cost benefit studies about electrifying the lines.

 

[Bret Cahill]

I can't even get UP to save $2.5 billion a year in diesel by
electrifying their main line in the desert.
How long is the line ?

LA to Houston or New Orleans, < 2000 miles.

Any idea how much it costs to electrifiy a line ?

Anything less than $1 million a mile would pay for itself in a year
assuming fuel costs remain the same.

Of course, no one believes post peak oil will not contiune to spiral.

Before UP can have the line electrified the savings will be 10 billion
a year and the one year payback rate will be $4million a mile.

That's $800/foot.

For a 5 year payback it's thousands of dollars/foot ďż˝. . .

The RR is subject to some Congressional oversight. �It'd be pretty
sorry for congress to have to tell them how to cut costs, although
this sometimes happens.

Bret Cahill

There is more to electrifying the line than putting up poles and
stringing wires.

The distances require that the there are seperate transmission lines
and feeders. �For a 2000 mile length, you are looking at a 500kV line
with regular substations to step it down to 100kV,

The power would be delivered from the power plants closest to the
track on the I-10 route, just a few feet in Tuscon.

so the transformers
in the locomotives do not have to go directly from 500kV to the 1320
volts that the locomotives run their motors at (1320 is a guess, but
the range will be 660V to, at most, 3000V[an unreasonably large
value]). �Insulation lifetime favors going for lower voltages.

It would be nice if the feeders over the tracks could be at the motor
voltage, but that would have each unit in the train drawing between
750A at 3000V and 3400A at 660V,
so each unit will need to have its
own onboard power substation-- those things cost money.

Not compared to the operating cost of diesel.

�A reasonable
first step is to put the motor-voltage feeders over railyards and
urban tracks so that a cheap add-on to existing locomotives will allow
them to save on fuel where it is cheap to feed them electricity from
the grid.

That's a quick way to reduce smog in the port cities. They just
outlawed burning bunker within 25 miles of the coast.

I am apalled that you assume that the people running the UP are
complete idiots who never ask themselves if there is a cheaper way to
run a railroad.

You need to read Dilbert more often.

Why didn't GM ask any questions about peak oil?

Why didn't the finance industry ask about the low interest rates of
the 1990s?

The answer is that organizations can often be dumber than the average
lumper.

�I would be surprised

I guarantee you _will_ be surprised.

if they did not continually do
cost benefit studies about electrifying the lines.

If that were true there would be some publication on the break even
point.

RRs are still subject to some congressional oversight so that's
probably the first place to look.


Bret Cahill

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:43:59 -0500, John Fields wrote:

One wire.

lol. sad, really sad.

 

[Sevenhundred Elves]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT), disgoftunwells
<disgoftunwells@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Quite funny, but actually cable car tractors could be quite feasible
and low cost. They'd run on wheels - just be pulled from a fixed
motor, instead of from an oxen.

Hear, hear! Best idea for electrifying agriculture so far!

<Followups set to sci.energy. Required to, by my news provider.>
S.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:56:37 +1000, terryc
<newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:43:59 -0500, John Fields wrote:

One wire.

lol. sad, really sad.

---
Tweren't me, that was Brat Cahill.

I guess he's going to use an earth return...

JF

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-07-30, Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The RR is subject to some Congressional oversight. It'd be pretty
sorry for congress to have to tell them how to cut costs, although
this sometimes happens.

That'd do it! My prediction there's no way that line will be electrified
until big oil can no longer afford to buy congress.

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Bret Cahill]

The RR is subject to some Congressional oversight. It'd be pretty
sorry for congress to have to tell them how to cut costs, although
this sometimes happens.

That'd do it! My prediction there's no way that line will be
electrified
until big oil can no longer afford to buy congress.

Gummint isn't something you can put on autopilot. Congress doesn't
work by itself. You have to _make_ it work.

If you don't _say_ anything, how do you think they'll be able to _do_
anything?

When the other 300 million people abandon their share of political
power, their share doesn't disappear altogether. It gets transferred
to the three guys who say something.


Bret Cahill


"Eternal vigilance"

-- Jefferson

 

[Dean Hoffman]

Mark wrote:

On Jul 29, 10:49 pm, Dean Hoffman <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com"
wrote:
Mark wrote:
re cables to power electric tractors...
see "center pivot irrigation"
If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
tractor.
Mark
There's a world of difference in the power requirements. Center
pivot motors are three phase 480 in the U.S. The older ones used either
a single one horsepower motor or a horse and a half motor. The newer
ones use motors half that size. The older ones had 10 AWG Cu in the
span cable to power the pivots that were 1/4 mile long. The newer ones
can get by with 12 AWG Cu to power the motors.

I'm sorry you missed my point.

My point is not about the amount of power needed to run the
irrigators vs a tractor... My point was, if a machine can be
designed to distribute WATER through a PIPE to a large circular area
like that, then a similar machine can be designed to distribute a
power cable to a tractor over a similarly large area.

Mark

I should've written more about what I was getting at.
The amount of power required would be a design consideration. The
weight of the necessary wire to allow for the voltage drop could be an
issue. The system would have to be strong enough to support both the
cable and the water if one wanted to use the system to irrigate. The
cost of the wire would be a big issue.
250 MCM is about $8/foot. 300 MCM is about $9.60/foot. 4/0 is about
$6.75/foot. Prices are for THWN 2 which isn't suitable for the use, but
the price was fairly easy to find.
Using 3 runs of 300 MCM plus one run of 250 MCM would total about
$48,000. Irrigation systems are a lot higher than I thought. I guess
they cost around $70,000 for a standard 1300 foot 7 tower system. That
comes to about $968/acre if I pushed the right buttons on my elcheapo
calculator.
That wouldn't include some sort of flexible cord and plug to
actually get the power to the tractor. I wonder if such a thing as a
250 amp plug in actually exists or would be safe to use if it did.
I can't picture how the actual working of it would be practical.
Let's say the farmer will plant in a circle to match the pivot. Put
the tractor at the first tower traveling at 5 mph. The 7th tower would
have to travel at 35 mph. Thirty five miles an hour in a field?
Through the gullies and over ridges or an occasional washout? Uh, no.
The pivot would have to make a lot of circles to complete the
planting. Pivot wheel tracks are an issue during irrigation. They
probably would be too for this application.
Another consideration would be mud holes or obstacles for the pivot
to get through or stop at. Odd shaped fields would also create problems.
The last problem that comes to mind is coordinating the pivot speed
to the tractor speed over the length of the pivot. I suppose some
bright college boy could do that but it wouldn't be cheap.

Dean








----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

re cables to power electric tractors...
see ďż˝"center pivot irrigation"
If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
tractor.
Mark
ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ There's a world of difference in the power requirements. ďż˝ Center
pivot motors are three phase 480 in the U.S. �The older ones used either
a single one horsepower motor or a horse and a half motor. �The newer
ones use motors half that size. �The older ones had 10 AWG Cu in the
span cable to power the pivots that were 1/4 mile long. �The newer ones
can get by with 12 AWG Cu to power the motors.

I'm sorry you missed my point.

My point is not about the amount of �power needed to run the
irrigators vs a tractor... ďż˝ My point was, if a machine can be
designed to distribute WATER through a PIPE �to a large circular area
like that, then a similar machine can be designed to distribute a
power cable to a tractor over a similarly large area.

Mark

� � �I should've written more about what I was getting at.
� � �The amount of power required would be a design consideration. �The
weight of the necessary wire to allow for the voltage drop could be an
issue. �The system would have to be strong enough to support both the
cable and the water if one wanted to use the system to irrigate. �The
cost of the wire would be a big issue.
� �250 MCM is about $8/foot. �300 MCM is about $9..60/foot. �4/0 is about
$6.75/foot. �Prices are for THWN 2 which isn't suitable for the use, but
the price was fairly easy to find.

I was acutely aware of prices of electrical wire at the time which is
why I wasn't too keen on trolley wiring the entire field, although
quite frankly, that couldn't cost any more than all those miles of
aluminum irrigation pipe they lay down and take up just for one crop
of lettuce.

ďż˝ ďż˝ Using 3 runs of 300 MCM plus one run of 250 MCM would total about
$48,000. �Irrigation systems are a lot higher than I thought. �I guess
they cost around $70,000 for a standard 1300 foot 7 tower system. �That
comes to about $968/acre if I pushed the right buttons on my elcheapo
calculator.

A berry field brings in at least an order of magnitude more money in
just one season.

This is getting ridiculous.

ďż˝ ďż˝ That wouldn't include some sort of flexible cord and plug to
actually get the power to the tractor. � �I wonder if such a thing as a
250 amp �plug in actually exists or would be safe to use if it did.

Years ago I worked in a machine shop making circular 1" diameter
single pole "lugs" for ships.

They'ld take 250 amps.

ďż˝ ďż˝ I can't picture how the actual working of it would be practical.
Let's say the farmer will plant in a circle to match the pivot. ďż˝ Put
the tractor at the first tower traveling at 5 mph. �The 7th tower would
have to travel at 35 mph. �Thirty five miles an hour in a field?

Break it up into concentric circles. I mentioned this last summer.

But if you need a controller to prevent binding, you might as well go
to the linear irrigator.

Through the gullies and over ridges or an occasional washout? �Uh, no.
ďż˝ ďż˝ The pivot would have to make a lot of circles to complete the
planting. ďż˝ Pivot wheel tracks are an issue during irrigation. ďż˝ They
probably would be too for this application.
ďż˝ ďż˝ Another consideration would be mud holes or obstacles for the pivot
to get through or stop at. �Odd shaped fields would also create problems.

Supposing it would be worthwhile to eliminate all the obstacles
first?

Someone needs to do a spreadsheet on capital costs, operating costs
including diesel . . .

Do farmers use spread sheets? That may be the problem right there.

The farmers in one valley have a unique situation; near zero
uncertainty. They just read up on whatever is selling at a high price
and the next day they are planting it. It's impossible for them to
not make a killing.

That's really what gave me the idea for the super pivot. Every farmer
should have complete control.

ďż˝ ďż˝ The last problem that comes to mind is coordinating the pivot speed
to the tractor speed over the length of the pivot. �I suppose some
bright college boy could do that but it wouldn't be cheap.

Billions are at stake.

I'm not a spread sheet type myself but with peak oil, we'll all have
to work harder. Maybe it's time to do some work on X Cell.


Bret Cahill

 

[Don Bowey]

On 8/4/08 10:33 AM, in article
567e6cd9-e710-40cd-a1ba-697dda0b0e14@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Few have the judgment to know what is cost effective without doing a
spread sheet, especially when considering untried technology.

Issues that don't seem all that important can have surprising effects
on the overall cost.

Every other industry hires industrial engineers, basically financial
accountants with an engineering background, to check out the cost
effectiveness of new technology. Any idea that comes up in house is
run by the IEOR dept. and gets a thumbs up or down.

State university extension centers have profs who study farm
economics, but they can't be expected to work every day with inventors
who haven't made up their minds.

More than a vague idea is required.

One poster recently drove everyone crazy on a Stirling group with his
vague idea concerning an unconcentrated solar roof engine. He framed
the debate claiming we couldn't prove it wouldn't be cost effective.
This was true because he never gave us anything except a vague idea so
we never had any numbers. I responded in kind with a lot of vague
generalities, i. e., roofing materials were the cheapest stuff ever
extracted from the earth yet roofing material still costs several
dollars /ft^2 installed, that cheap materials don't mean a cheap
engine because the materials in a gas turbine are cheaper on a per
watt basis than the materials in the penny/watt ICE, etc.

To get started float a very few definite ideas and then modify and add
and drop as necessary. If someone raises a spread sheet issue
without doing the spreadsheet, then no conclusions can be made.

The really hard part of inventing is to have the judgment so you don't
have to evaluate an infinite number of designs.

I'm currently looking for a Theory of Unnecessary Mechanical
Complexity:

If it has more than one moving part it's a bad design . . .

If it requires more machine work than a drill press it's a bad
design . . .

If it requires parts other than steel balls, pipes, bars or springs,
it's a bad design . . .

If it requires 3-D CAD it's a bad design . . .

KISS Keep It Simple Stupid


Bret Cahill

Your Project has a uselessly stupid planner. Fire yourself.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Few have the judgment to know what is cost effective without doing a
spread sheet, especially when considering untried technology.

Issues that don't seem all that important can have surprising effects
on the overall cost.

Every other industry hires industrial engineers, basically financial
accountants with an engineering background, to check out the cost
effectiveness of new technology. Any idea that comes up in house is
run by the IEOR dept. and gets a thumbs up or down.

State university extension centers have profs who study farm
economics, but they can't be expected to work every day with inventors
who haven't made up their minds.

More than a vague idea is required.

One poster recently drove everyone crazy on a Stirling group with his
vague idea concerning an unconcentrated solar roof engine. He framed
the debate claiming we couldn't prove it wouldn't be cost effective.
This was true because he never gave us anything except a vague idea so
we never had any numbers. I responded in kind with a lot of vague
generalities, i. e., roofing materials were the cheapest stuff ever
extracted from the earth yet roofing material still costs several
dollars /ft^2 installed, that cheap materials don't mean a cheap
engine because the materials in a gas turbine are cheaper on a per
watt basis than the materials in the penny/watt ICE, etc.

To get started float a very few definite ideas and then modify and add
and drop as necessary. If someone raises a spread sheet issue
without doing the spreadsheet, then no conclusions can be made.

The really hard part of inventing is to have the judgment so you don't
have to evaluate an infinite number of designs.

I'm currently looking for a Theory of Unnecessary Mechanical
Complexity:

If it has more than one moving part it's a bad design . . .

If it requires more machine work than a drill press it's a bad
design . . .

If it requires parts other than steel balls, pipes, bars or springs,
it's a bad design . . .

If it requires 3-D CAD it's a bad design . . .

KISS Keep It Simple Stupid


Bret Cahill

 

[John]

A properly shaped explosive charge placed over the center of the area to
be plowed would require less energy than any of the proposals so far
made, which is to say yer all full of shit.

 

[Don Bowey]

On 8/5/08 7:09 AM, in article
b98141c5-9b4d-4b96-b1db-5d78823264bf@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

On Aug 4, 11:56?am, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 8/4/08 10:33 AM, in article
567e6cd9-e710-40cd-a1ba-697dda0b0...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com, "Bret
wrote:


Few have the judgment to know what is cost effective without doing a
spread sheet, especially when considering untried technology.

Issues that don't seem all that important can have surprising effects
on the overall cost.

Every other industry hires industrial engineers, basically financial
accountants with an engineering background, to check out the cost
effectiveness of new technology. ? Any idea that comes up in house is
run by the IEOR dept. and gets a thumbs up or down.

State university extension centers have profs who study farm
economics, but they can't be expected to work every day with inventors
who haven't made up their minds.

More than a vague idea is required.

One poster recently drove everyone crazy on a Stirling group with his
vague idea concerning an unconcentrated solar roof engine. ?He framed
the debate claiming we couldn't prove it wouldn't be cost effective.
This was true because he never gave us anything except a vague idea so
we never had any numbers. ?I responded in kind with a lot of vague
generalities, i. e., roofing materials were the cheapest stuff ever
extracted from the earth yet roofing material still costs several
dollars /ft^2 installed, that cheap materials don't mean a cheap
engine because the materials in a gas turbine are cheaper on a per
watt basis than the materials in the penny/watt ICE, etc.

To get started float a very few definite ideas and then modify and add
and drop as necessary. ?If someone raises a spread sheet ?issue
without doing the spreadsheet, then no conclusions can be made.

The really hard part of inventing is to have the judgment so you don't
have to evaluate an infinite number of designs.

I'm currently looking for a Theory of Unnecessary Mechanical
Complexity:

If it has more than one moving part it's a bad design . . .

If it requires more machine work than a drill press it's a bad
design . . .

If it requires parts other than steel balls, pipes, bars or springs,
it's a bad design . . .

If it requires 3-D CAD it's a bad design . . .

KISS ?Keep It Simple Stupid

Bret Cahill


Your Project has a uselessly stupid planner. Fire yourself.

Which project?

All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I
specifically had in mind, which is your spam/blog/idiocy about farming.

Ask your case worker to provide more of that ADD (attention deficit
disorder) drug. You cannot stay on topic for more than 2 seconds.

I'd say that's more you problem.

Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

On Aug 4, 11:56�am, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:

On 8/4/08 10:33 AM, in article
567e6cd9-e710-40cd-a1ba-697dda0b0...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com, "Bret





Cahill" <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Few have the judgment to know what is cost effective without doing a
spread sheet, especially when considering untried technology.

Issues that don't seem all that important can have surprising effects
on the overall cost.

Every other industry hires industrial engineers, basically financial
accountants with an engineering background, to check out the cost
effectiveness of new technology. ďż˝ Any idea that comes up in house is
run by the IEOR dept. and gets a thumbs up or down.

State university extension centers have profs who study farm
economics, but they can't be expected to work every day with inventors
who haven't made up their minds.

More than a vague idea is required.

One poster recently drove everyone crazy on a Stirling group with his
vague idea concerning an unconcentrated solar roof engine. �He framed
the debate claiming we couldn't prove it wouldn't be cost effective.
This was true because he never gave us anything except a vague idea so
we never had any numbers. �I responded in kind with a lot of vague
generalities, i. e., roofing materials were the cheapest stuff ever
extracted from the earth yet roofing material still costs several
dollars /ft^2 installed, that cheap materials don't mean a cheap
engine because the materials in a gas turbine are cheaper on a per
watt basis than the materials in the penny/watt ICE, etc.

To get started float a very few definite ideas and then modify and add
and drop as necessary. �If someone raises a spread sheet �issue
without doing the spreadsheet, then no conclusions can be made.

The really hard part of inventing is to have the judgment so you don't
have to evaluate an infinite number of designs.

I'm currently looking for a Theory of Unnecessary Mechanical
Complexity:

If it has more than one moving part it's a bad design . . .

If it requires more machine work than a drill press it's a bad
design . . .

If it requires parts other than steel balls, pipes, bars or springs,
it's a bad design . . .

If it requires 3-D CAD it's a bad design . . .

KISS �Keep It Simple Stupid

Bret Cahill

Your Project

Which project?

Ask your case worker to provide more of that ADD (attention deficit
disorder) drug. You cannot stay on topic for more than 2 seconds.


Bret Cahill