mostagear
you misunderstand my point, I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.
I wasn't suggesting you were ignoring any posts; I've no way of knowing that.
I don't mean acknowledging or thanking the posters, either (which you did).
I mean: entering into a discussion on key points they raise.
I am suggesting that to get somewhere with solving a hard problem like this, I think you need to respond to more of the points - or at least the "killer" point, which is the cycle time of ~~3 mins
If we were playing tennis, not doing this seems to me like each player is lining up to serve and there's you, at the other end of the court, not returning the ball, just waiting for the next serve, or the next player.
And then occasionally when it comes round to your turn, you serve
What seems to work better is if we get "return of serve" more often, perhaps by you saying things like maybe
"well, I plan to work three eight hour shifts a day for six days" or
"if I have to, I'll get another couple of machines".....
so that then people have some idea of what further angles to consider, suggestions to make, or objections to raise.
.....or if you can't do these things, or other things, to achieve a throughput which looks impossible, at least tell us what you can't do and why, and we might think of some new angles.
So ... I'm sorry if my comment sounded like a criticism, and I can see how it comes out sounding like one.
It was actually intended as a suggestion on how to get the best out of the considerable accumulated experience and mental horsepower available here.