[b112]

But it can be, that's my point. It can be!

In another post, I spoke of a leasing model. Now to be clear, I am 100% against a leasing model of ownership foisted upon us all, for everything we own.

However fridges are a good example, as when they break food spoils. Potentially some expensive food, such a frozen meat. If they were leased, and if it was mandated that under leasing models the company was responsible for replacement food costs?

Then I firmly believe, under that failure cost, that in under a decade fridges would last 100+ years without maintenance.

Products used to last longer, they really and truly did. That's why that law was passed in Quebec, and it's not the only place. We had products which lasted longer in the 60s in some cases, "over-engineered", yet our manufacturing capabilities and tolerances and quality control were not on par, not even close with our capabilities now.

I am literally more than doubling down on my statement, my 100+ years compared to 40 years. The motive isn't there, it isn't a lack of capability.

Anyhow, I suspect you still don't agree. But I do believe you'd agree that there isn't a profit motive in many aspects of our market for tireless improvements? And that, even if you think my statements are fantastical, you still may agree that we could do better?

[rimunroe]

> But it can be, that's my point. It can be!

You have not explained how. You've just described ways you think we could incentivize longer-lasting products. Having incentives doesn't make materials science or engineering magically be able to do things it couldn't before, especially when such incentives aren't new.

I'm interested in hearing your actual technical points as to how we can address any of the problems I've mentioned, not just your assertions that it's clearly doable somehow.

> We had products which lasted longer in the 60s in some cases, "over-engineered", yet our manufacturing capabilities and tolerances and quality control were not on par, not even close with our capabilities now.

I never argued things didn't last longer in the past, and I'm not sure why you're acting like I did. I do think appliances are more prone to failure today, though I also think the reputation for things in the past lasting so long is heavily biased by the fact that repairing devices (i.e. maintenance) was more common back then, and because we didn't worry about safety or efficiency nearly as much, and because of good old survivorship bias.

> I am literally more than doubling down on my statement, my 100+ years compared to 40 years. The motive isn't there, it isn't a lack of capability.

As an example, humans have been trying to prevent corrosion of metal objects for literally thousands of years. The global annual economic impact of corrosion today is estimated at $2.5 trillion. We've made major advances in materials science and have alloys, coatings, and other technologies which have allowed a lot of applications which just wouldn't have been possible in the past, but most of those have still happened over the course of centuries.

There are enormous, unfathomable incentives to come up with better materials and components outside of the home appliance industry, but they have to deal with the same problems and struggle just as much or more.

> Then I firmly believe, under that failure cost, that in under a decade fridges would last 100+ years without maintenance.

Again, you'll need to explain what materials we'll use for this, or how tighter manufacturing tolerances would allow such an enormous increase in longevity, much less without increasing costs astronomically.

Overall I think you're being far too optimistic about how long components which need to run nearly constantly for decades can last even under ideal circumstances. I think you're being unbelievably optimistic in thinking that even if such products were possible they could be done for anywhere even near the price the average fridge costs these days.

> But I do believe you'd agree that there isn't a profit motive in many aspects of our market for tireless improvements?

To a degree, yes, but I also think people who argue that we don't make devices like we used to miss that as a society we don't want the devices we used to.

> And that, even if you think my statements are fantastical, you still may agree that we could do better?

I'd never argue that we can't do better. I will argue that your idea of a fridge (especially a modern one) which lasts 40-50 years (much less over a century) is ludicrous. It's certainly possible you'd have an individual fridge which lasts an incredibly long time without maintenance, but such survivals will always be the rare exception rather than the norm.

[b112]

Improved manufacturing capability reduces the likelihood of early part failure, and better precision reduces wear on parts which interact. It's one piece of the puzzle. The more precise, the more consistent, the longer lasting. Material strength is inline with this, it's why I showed you the example of a ball point pen ball, which is about precision but also about material strength and material manufacturing purity.

What I've also shown is the past, until now. I've shown a culture still catching up to where we were in the 60s. And from that, I'm extrapolating that materials science makes improvements, and how.

And I'm saying that something like a fridge used to last longer, and it's been 65 years, and now they appear to fail more often. From that, I deduce that fridges should be lasting at least as long, if not longer, and that this is suspicious and indicative of a negative incentive for longevity.

Some materials may need to be replaced, quite assuredly. You seem stuck on the fact that "Wait, we don't have this now, therefore, there's no proof it ever could be". Show me, you say. Prove it. But this is of course unreasonable, for this is not my field, and I am clearly giving my opinion. However, what's happening is that there just isn't much research into longevity. Instead, the research is into short-term suitability, and warranty issues.

You cite that there are incentives in other areas. And indeed there are! But only to a point. There is low incentive to make cars last longer beyond a point, and the same holds true for products for the military. We've abated oxidization to a point, but further research, or more importantly implementation of that research, would only hinder sales on any front.

All that said, I don't think we're going to persuade each other of much beyond what we've said. You want proof, but all I'm willing to give you is deduced proof predicated upon my life experiences. Nothing will emerge beyond that.

[rimunroe]

> Show me, you say. Prove it. But this is of course unreasonable, for this is not my field, and I am clearly giving my opinion.

This is kinda my point. You don’t seem to be coming at this from a position of much experience in the field but are confidently making assertions about it. You are confidently handwaving away what would be massive advancements in both materials science and manufacturing, all why saying it could result in an affordable fridge which would last for over a century. That’s unrealistic.

We can speculate a lot about advancements which might happen in many decades or even centuries in the future, but it’s foolish to talk about them with confidence, and it’s often irrelevant to the present.

> However, what's happening is that there just isn't much research into longevity.

That is patently false. The field of materials science and several branches of engineering deal with this constantly.

> There is low incentive to make cars last longer beyond a point, and the same holds true for products for the military.

Weren’t you originally trying to make the opposite point by using the B-52 as an analogy?

[b112]

That is patently false. The field of materials science and several branches of engineering deal with this constantly

Which still isn't much, conpared to if everyone cared.

Weren’t you originally trying to make the opposite point by using the B-52 as an analogy?

The B-52 is managed by the government, and from another era. Just as my Volvo example was.

Compare either to modern variants. Who maintains the F-35? Who profits from poor quality?

[rimunroe]

> Which still isn't much, conpared to if everyone cared.

This is yet another blind assertion. Please give details about how it isn't being paid attention to much.

> Compare either to modern variants. Who maintains the F-35? Who profits from poor quality?

You keep arguing vague things without actually giving any examples. The F-35 is a vastly more complicated aircraft than the B-52. Please give an example as to which part or parts you're referring to as being low quality in comparison.

Fighters can't be used for nearly as long as a bomber like the B-52 because the threats they face evolve quickly and are much closer. You wouldn't fly an F-14 against a modern fighter because you'd be blasted out of the sky with an air-to-air missile from 50 miles away. A B-52 can attack from quite a ways away or be held off until airspace is under control. A B-2 on the other hand is supposed to be able to fly in unobserved, and thus its service lifetime will be more limited.

[b112]

https://anycrap.shop/product/bbarnett-s-super-mega-powerful-...