P
Peter Clinch
Guest
David Damerell wrote:
> Well, no. There's a dodge going on here where the real advantage of not
> needing as much maintenance is twisted into better performance (because
> the performance is better when unmaintained). That's double accounting; if
> you're going to argue based on the unmaintained performance, you can't
> argue that they need less maintenance.
Two things:
1) maintenance is an improved feature
2) performance, via better control through more sensitivity, is an
improved feature.
It's in the books as two things because it's two things. The
maintenance angle is better, and the performance is better, quite
independently. But if you don't do all the maintenance on a mech cable
then the hydraulic performs much, much better, rather than merely a
(tangibly) bit better.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> Well, no. There's a dodge going on here where the real advantage of not
> needing as much maintenance is twisted into better performance (because
> the performance is better when unmaintained). That's double accounting; if
> you're going to argue based on the unmaintained performance, you can't
> argue that they need less maintenance.
Two things:
1) maintenance is an improved feature
2) performance, via better control through more sensitivity, is an
improved feature.
It's in the books as two things because it's two things. The
maintenance angle is better, and the performance is better, quite
independently. But if you don't do all the maintenance on a mech cable
then the hydraulic performs much, much better, rather than merely a
(tangibly) bit better.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/