Power surges and modern electronics.

[Brenda Ann]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
news:ie08h8$1ib$1@news.eternal-september.org...

I had one here -- but it always kept losing signal. So, you
get a false sense of security *thinking* it is telling the correct
time -- only to discover it wasn't. I guess they are sensitive to
where they are located/oriented. Given how "unattractive" this
one was (think: functional not decorative), the choices for where
it could acceptably be sited were limited. So, it got relocated --
to the trash. :

Such clocks are best kept away from computers and other sources of EMI/RFI.
Once you find a clean spot, you should be okay.

Those with LCDs usually have an indicator that shows whether the clock has
been recently resynched.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's kind of funny, really. Since they took clocks 'off the grid', they've
tried more and more elaborate bandaid measures to keep them accurate. I have
a good old fashioned AC synchronous wall clock that never gains nor loses
time as long as it has power, and half a dozen "quartz-accurate" clocks that
never seem to keep time, including the one in my DVR, which loses time like
crazy.

 

[D Yuniskis]

Hi William,

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I had one here -- but it always kept losing signal. So, you
get a false sense of security *thinking* it is telling the correct
time -- only to discover it wasn't. I guess they are sensitive to
where they are located/oriented. Given how "unattractive" this
one was (think: functional not decorative), the choices for where
it could acceptably be sited were limited. So, it got relocated --
to the trash. :

Such clocks are best kept away from computers and other sources of EMI/RFI.
Once you find a clean spot, you should be okay.

<grin> I doubt there are any such spots in this house! :-/

Those with LCDs usually have an indicator that shows whether the clock has
been recently resynched.

This had "hands". I guess driven by a little stepper motor.
As I said, the minute hand would race around as if it was a
second hand when it was "setting" the clock (I suspect it
only gets feedback from the "o'clock" (straight up) position.
So, it runs the minute hand to that position, then counts
"steps" from there to get to desired position.

 

[D Yuniskis]

Hi Brenda,

Brenda Ann wrote:

It's kind of funny, really. Since they took clocks 'off the grid',
they've tried more and more elaborate bandaid measures to keep them
accurate. I have a good old fashioned AC synchronous wall clock that
never gains nor loses time as long as it has power, and half a dozen
"quartz-accurate" clocks that never seem to keep time, including the one
in my DVR, which loses time like crazy.

The frequency of AC power is tightly controlled. Some short
term variations in frequency are allowed. But, long term
it has to be very accurate (precisely for this reason as
a timebase).

I always wondered how wristwatches could be so damned accurate
considering how cheap they are (especially these disposable ones).
But, then realized they operate at a constant temperature, etc.

By contrast, look at how poorly clocks in cars keep time...

 

[John Keiser]

Follow up in case anyone else has this problem:
While unplugging the TV seemed to restore operation, the next morning the
screen was all pink but the menu functioned fine. Toggling "Factory Reset"
seems to have done the trick permanently.
"John Keiser" <john.keiser2@hawaiiantel.net> wrote in message
newst2dndwbSd3dwp_QnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@powerusenet.com...

I am in Hawaii where power surges are unfortunately common. Having lost
several PC power supplies, I now use line conditioning battery backup units
to protect my PCs.
Several months ago I salvaged a Westington flat screen [LTV-32w6 HD] that
had been abandoned because the tuner failed. As the tuner is part of the
motherboard I didn't fix it was easier to use an external VCR as the
tuner. TV functions fine. I assume the tuner died in a power surge.
Yesterday, the power failed and I awoke to find that the TV had turned
itself on but no sound. Toggling mute and adding external speakers did
not work. I assumed the worst but guessed that maybe this was a
microprocessor locked into mute. I unplugged the set and tried again
after 15 minutes. Sound was restored. Whew!
I wonder how many consumers would be so lucky? Is this type of
sensitivity common? [I have a nice old 32inch CRT that has been immmune
from these problems and provides a great picture.] I'll probably add a
line conditioner, but, really, are consumers expected to be that cautious?

 

[larry moe 'n curly]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:11:00 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:

Third, most flat panel sets are put together out of crappy components,
especially the capacitors.

Dell is hoping there are no more of those crappy-caps around!

Dell was not using "crappy" capacitors. What they were doing is the
same thing that almost every other manufactory is currently also
doing. They are rating their electrolytics as close to the bitter
edge of failure as possible. That saves a few pennies in cost by
using a lower voltage electrolytic but shortens the capacitor life. My
guess(tm) is that Dell's OEM supplier in China selected the capacitors
based upon faulty calculations, where it was designed to blow up in
about 5 years, instead of the 1-2 years specified in the class action
suit.

I don't know about Dell LCDs, but their computer motherboards of 5-8
years ago that failed at high rates were actually made with very good
brands of capacitors, like Rubycon, Nichicon, and Panasonic, not the
common crap found on many other motherboards . Unfortunately Nichicon
produced bad batches of their HM and HN series caps, marked HM(M) and
HN(M), from around 2001-2004.

 

[Chuck]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:02:46 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly"
<larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:11:00 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:

Third, most flat panel sets are put together out of crappy components,
especially the capacitors.

Dell is hoping there are no more of those crappy-caps around!

Dell was not using "crappy" capacitors. What they were doing is the
same thing that almost every other manufactory is currently also
doing. They are rating their electrolytics as close to the bitter
edge of failure as possible. That saves a few pennies in cost by
using a lower voltage electrolytic but shortens the capacitor life. My
guess(tm) is that Dell's OEM supplier in China selected the capacitors
based upon faulty calculations, where it was designed to blow up in
about 5 years, instead of the 1-2 years specified in the class action
suit.

I don't know about Dell LCDs, but their computer motherboards of 5-8
years ago that failed at high rates were actually made with very good
brands of capacitors, like Rubycon, Nichicon, and Panasonic, not the
common crap found on many other motherboards . Unfortunately Nichicon
produced bad batches of their HM and HN series caps, marked HM(M) and
HN(M), from around 2001-2004.

Just finished working on a Dell Optiplex that has 8 Rubyicon 1800 uf
6,3v caps in a row; all of which were leaking out the top of the caps.
The failure rate of Rubycon capacitors was high back when I was
repairing televisions, particularly Mitsubishis of the late 90s.
Chuck

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:02:46 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly"
<larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:11:00 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:

Third, most flat panel sets are put together out of crappy components,
especially the capacitors.

Dell is hoping there are no more of those crappy-caps around!

Dell was not using "crappy" capacitors. What they were doing is the
same thing that almost every other manufactory is currently also
doing. They are rating their electrolytics as close to the bitter
edge of failure as possible. That saves a few pennies in cost by
using a lower voltage electrolytic but shortens the capacitor life. My
guess(tm) is that Dell's OEM supplier in China selected the capacitors
based upon faulty calculations, where it was designed to blow up in
about 5 years, instead of the 1-2 years specified in the class action
suit.

I don't know about Dell LCDs, but their computer motherboards of 5-8
years ago that failed at high rates were actually made with very good
brands of capacitors, like Rubycon, Nichicon, and Panasonic, not the
common crap found on many other motherboards . Unfortunately Nichicon
produced bad batches of their HM and HN series caps, marked HM(M) and
HN(M), from around 2001-2004.

I think you just demonstrated my point. It's not the brand or even
the quality of the caps. It's the voltage rating. In most cases, the
capacitors voltage rating is just too close to the operating voltage.
Filtering a 5vDC power supply line with 6.3v caps is just asking for
the caps to blow up. I've ranted on the subject before but am a bit
busy to dig out references right now. Short summary is that
electrolytics will derate substantially under high temperatures. The
ESR will also climb, causing increased self heating. Drops in
capacitance will cause increased ripple, which will produce increased
ripple current, which will result in additional heating. Manufacturers
can search forever to find a better quality 6.3v capacitor, but what's
really needed is to spend a few pennies more and use a 10v capacitor.

Electrolytic life calculators:
<http://www.illinoiscapacitor.com/tech-center/life-calculators.aspx>
<http://www.cde.com/calc/>
<http://www.niccomp.com/Products/General/Alumlyticlifeexpect.pdf>
<http://powerelectronics.com/images/archive/ElectrolyticCap.pdf>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[larry moe 'n curly]

Chuck wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:02:46 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly"
larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:11:00 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:

Third, most flat panel sets are put together out of crappy components,
especially the capacitors.

Dell is hoping there are no more of those crappy-caps around!

Dell was not using "crappy" capacitors. What they were doing is the
same thing that almost every other manufactory is currently also
doing. They are rating their electrolytics as close to the bitter
edge of failure as possible. That saves a few pennies in cost by
using a lower voltage electrolytic but shortens the capacitor life. My
guess(tm) is that Dell's OEM supplier in China selected the capacitors
based upon faulty calculations, where it was designed to blow up in
about 5 years, instead of the 1-2 years specified in the class action
suit.

I don't know about Dell LCDs, but their computer motherboards of 5-8
years ago that failed at high rates were actually made with very good
brands of capacitors, like Rubycon, Nichicon, and Panasonic, not the
common crap found on many other motherboards . Unfortunately Nichicon
produced bad batches of their HM and HN series caps, marked HM(M) and
HN(M), from around 2001-2004.

Just finished working on a Dell Optiplex that has 8 Rubyicon 1800 uf
6,3v caps in a row; all of which were leaking out the top of the caps.
The failure rate of Rubycon capacitors was high back when I was
repairing televisions, particularly Mitsubishis of the late 90s.
Chuck

The Pentium4 CPUs in those Dells were such power hogs that even
Rubycons would usually wear out in about 5 years.

Why has my 1976 Sanyo TV needed only 2 caps replaced (audio coupling,
vertical yoke)? The 2-year-old digital converter box that sits on top
of it has needed a lot more caps replaced.

 

[Powermac]

On Dec 14, 8:07 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

Chuck wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:02:46 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly"
larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:11:00 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
pheeh.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

Third, most flat panel sets are put together out of crappy components,
especially the capacitors.

Dell is hoping there are no more of those crappy-caps around!

Dell was not using "crappy" capacitors.  What they were doing is the
same thing that almost every other manufactory is currently also
doing.  They are rating their electrolytics as close to the bitter
edge of failure as possible.  That saves a few pennies in cost by
using a lower voltage electrolytic but shortens the capacitor life. My
guess(tm) is that Dell's OEM supplier in China selected the capacitors
based upon faulty calculations, where it was designed to blow up in
about 5 years, instead of the 1-2 years specified in the class action
suit.

I don't know about Dell LCDs, but their computer motherboards of 5-8
years ago that failed at high rates were actually made with very good
brands of capacitors, like Rubycon, Nichicon, and Panasonic, not the
common crap found on many other motherboards .  Unfortunately Nichicon
produced bad batches of their HM and HN series caps, marked HM(M) and
HN(M), from around 2001-2004.

Just finished working on a Dell Optiplex that has 8 Rubyicon 1800 uf
6,3v caps in a row; all of which were leaking out the top of the caps.
The failure rate of Rubycon capacitors was high back when I was
repairing televisions, particularly Mitsubishis of the late 90s.
Chuck

The Pentium4 CPUs in those Dells were such power hogs that even
Rubycons would usually wear out in about 5 years.

Why has my 1976 Sanyo TV needed only 2 caps replaced (audio coupling,
vertical yoke)?  The 2-year-old digital converter box that sits on top
of it has needed a lot more caps replaced.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Engineering precision I assume, once you know exactly how a complex
circuit will run (using a computer simulation) you have no need to
over design the components (slop factor).

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:07:39 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly"
<larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:

The Pentium4 CPUs in those Dells were such power hogs that even
Rubycons would usually wear out in about 5 years.

Sorta. Caps only dissipate power when current runs through them. In
the case of filter caps, it's the ripple current that causes internal
heating. If you use under-value caps or high ESR caps, you'll have
heating. Among other things, heating causes electrolyte loss. See
the bottom of:
<http://www.dfrsolutions.com/uploads/white-papers/Uprating_of_Electrolytic_Capacitors.pdf>
for the bad news.

Why has my 1976 Sanyo TV needed only 2 caps replaced (audio coupling,
vertical yoke)? The 2-year-old digital converter box that sits on top
of it has needed a lot more caps replaced.

Because they didn't have decent computers in the 1970's and therefore
could not calculate capacitor values to the bitter edge of near
failure. Designers weren't quite sure what they could get away with,
so they always left a safety factor.

These days, we have CAD workstations and modeling software that will
accurately predict when something will blow. The typical design
criteria is the absolute cheapest components which will fail
immediately after the warranty expires. Similarly, manufacturers of
capacitors didn't have the production controls necessary to accurately
rate their components. So a 6.3WV (working voltage) capacitor was
often really a 10WV capacitor. These days, if it's 6.3V, you fairly
well be certain that it will die a horrible death at a few millivolts
over 6.3V. Your two year old converter box was designed to operate
only up to its probably 1 year warranty. After that, it's actually
desireable for the manufacturer to have it blow up.

There was also an odd preception that electronic devices were suppose
to last "a lifetime". It was not unusual to have TV's and consumer
electronics last 20-30 years without anything more than mechanical
failures. Maybe a dried out electroltyic or blown dial lamps, but not
much more. However, that was bad for business as nobody wanted to
replace something that was still working. Well, that has obviously
changed to the throw-away and eWaste mentality. It sucks, but I have
no clue how to change it. Few seem willing to pay for quality, and
even fewer know quality when they see it.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[larry moe 'n curly]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:02:46 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly"
larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:11:00 -0800 (PST), Bob Villa
pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:

Third, most flat panel sets are put together out of crappy components,
especially the capacitors.

Dell is hoping there are no more of those crappy-caps around!

Dell was not using "crappy" capacitors. What they were doing is the
same thing that almost every other manufactory is currently also
doing. They are rating their electrolytics as close to the bitter
edge of failure as possible. That saves a few pennies in cost by
using a lower voltage electrolytic but shortens the capacitor life. My
guess(tm) is that Dell's OEM supplier in China selected the capacitors
based upon faulty calculations, where it was designed to blow up in
about 5 years, instead of the 1-2 years specified in the class action
suit.

I don't know about Dell LCDs, but their computer motherboards of 5-8
years ago that failed at high rates were actually made with very good
brands of capacitors, like Rubycon, Nichicon, and Panasonic, not the
common crap found on many other motherboards . Unfortunately Nichicon
produced bad batches of their HM and HN series caps, marked HM(M) and
HN(M), from around 2001-2004.

I think you just demonstrated my point. It's not the brand or even
the quality of the caps. It's the voltage rating. In most cases, the
capacitors voltage rating is just too close to the operating voltage.
Filtering a 5vDC power supply line with 6.3v caps is just asking for
the caps to blow up. I've ranted on the subject before but am a bit
busy to dig out references right now. Short summary is that
electrolytics will derate substantially under high temperatures. The
ESR will also climb, causing increased self heating. Drops in
capacitance will cause increased ripple, which will produce increased
ripple current, which will result in additional heating. Manufacturers
can search forever to find a better quality 6.3v capacitor, but what's
really needed is to spend a few pennies more and use a 10v capacitor.

But most of the capacitor failures in those Dells involved incorrectly
made Nichicon HNs, and after Dell quit using Nichicons in the CPU
voltage regulator and switched over to Rubycons, most of the capacitor
failures were still among the remaining Nichicon HNs, despite those
capacitors running at lower temperatures and ripple currents (they
were in the AGP slot and memory voltage regulators) than the Rubycons
and well below their 6.3V rating. So why did the Rubycons hold up
better? Could it have been their higher quality? Also among the
motherboards I've seen, why have those with the highest proportion of
bad caps been those with the highest proportion of 10V caps -- awful
10V G-Luxon brand caps? This is why I blame the garbage, not the
voltage ratings.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Because they didn't have decent computers in the 1970's
and therefore could not calculate capacitor values to the
bitter edge of near failure.

Of course they decent computers! Ever seen an HP-35? My aunt gave me one as
a pre-graduation present, and I was one of only three people on the U of MD
campus (out of 35,000) who owned one. Several of my dorm-mates were science
or engineering majors, and we'd sit around of an evening, using the HP-35 to
calculate the answers to their homework.

Frankly, even a slide rule is accurate enough.

Designers weren't quite sure what they could get away with,
so they always left a safety factor.

They still aren't sure. No responsible engineer designs a circuit to the
hairy edge of proper operation or reliability. (I know, I know...)

There was also an odd preception that electronic devices were
supposed to last "a lifetime". It was not unusual to have TV's
and consumer electronics last 20-30 years without anything
more than mechanical failures.

I've been lucky. I have tons of electronic equipment, and most has held up
with hardly any breakdowns. This includes recent purchases. * My NAD MR-20
lasted 20 years of heavy use until the focus went out. (If the parts were
still available, I would have fixed it. Ditto for my 36" Sony flat-face
WEGA, which also gets heavy use, and is nearly 10 years old. I expect it to
go at least another 10 years without repair (if I keep it).

The least-reliable products I've ever owned came from one of /the/ leading
American manufacturers of high-end audio. /Every/ component broke down
repeatedly. When one of the power amps damaged one of my speakers, that was
the last straw. The replacement amplification, designed by John Curl and
costing much less than The Other Spread, has given no trouble.

The "throw-away mentality" is most-likely due to the rising cost of
competent service bumping into the falling cost of electronics. Not to
mention that the latter are increasingly difficult to service. The rapid
changes in technology also encourage people to throw out broken stuff.

* Of course, I rarely buy cheap products. Purchases are permanent
investments that "ought" to last forever. This has mostly been the case.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:43:16 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Of course they decent computers! Ever seen an HP-35?

I collect HP calculators. I think I have 3ea HP35's, not counting the
marginal HP35s. I went through college using a slide rule. In my
last semester, I lusted after an HP35 but had to settle for a cheaper
TI SR-10 clunker. I also built an electronic slide rule using
Helipots, analog multiplier modules, and a mirrored expanded scale
meter. It all fit into a brief case. With a slide rule, my errors
were usually powers of 10 errors. With a calculator, I had those plus
sloppy number entry errors. These daze, with computahs, I now can add
algorithm errors. The old errors never seem to go away.

Designers weren't quite sure what they could get away with,
so they always left a safety factor.

They still aren't sure. No responsible engineer designs a circuit to the
hairy edge of proper operation or reliability. (I know, I know...)

I beg to differ. Here's the typical scene. Engineer designs a
product to the best of his abilities. Everything sorta works, but he
had to stop designing in order to meet an arbitrary deadline so the
boss could comfortably fit in his vacation trip. The design review
committee decides that it's good enough, but the VP of bean counting
announces that the customer has declared that unless we cut out X
number of dollars out of the price, they'll go to the evil competition
in China. Actually, the customer has said no such thing, but since
the VP of bean counting's bonus check is dependent on the product
margin, it magically becomes the official target price.

So, our formerly sane and sober engineer is now tasked with butchering
his own product. Originally designed with a 10+ year component
lifetime and MTBF, he starts by removing almost all his safety factor.
Voltage ratings are cut to the bare minimum. Optional manufacturing
features (JTAG port, test points, documentation, removable fasteners,
etc.) are all removed. Sectional testing is replaced by parametric
testing and sample testing.

This is not science fiction. I've been through two consulting
exercises where this was almost exactly what happened. Nobody wants
to cut corners, but the mechanism for forcing engineers to cut corners
is built into the system. Quality is a luxury these days.

I've been lucky. I have tons of electronic equipment, and most has held up
with hardly any breakdowns.

My test equipment pile looks like a 1980's period museum.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/BL-shop6.html>
(A clean shop is a sure sign of a sick mind).

The least-reliable products I've ever owned came from one of /the/ leading
American manufacturers of high-end audio.

I don't do much audio, so I have no experience. However, I did see
something rather typical today. I'm in Kmart in Scotts Valley CA
today. 6ea Dell computers (GX620). Only 2 of them work. One of the
two that was still working rebooted unexpectedly causing the user to
walk away in disgust. I got lucky and picked the last remaining
working machine.

The "throw-away mentality" is most-likely due to the rising cost of
competent service bumping into the falling cost of electronics. Not to
mention that the latter are increasingly difficult to service. The rapid
changes in technology also encourage people to throw out broken stuff.

Yep. When the iPhone arrived, I couldn't believe how many iPaq and
Palm PDA's I saw at the recycler. It's not like the old stuff is no
longer functional or usable. It's just not fashionable any more.

* Of course, I rarely buy cheap products. Purchases are permanent
investments that "ought" to last forever. This has mostly been the case.

I'm a compulsive repairman. Therefore, I rarely buy anything new. I
tend to buy used and broken, fix it, and then use it forever. Once
I've been inside, I can usually tell if it's going to last. The stuff
that isn't, is sold or donated. Looking at the photo of the shop, I
don't think there's anything on the shelf that I didn't buy broken and
later fix. Unfortunately, the pile of stuff that I couldn't fix (or
don't have time to fix) is about 3 times as large.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[D Yuniskis]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Designers weren't quite sure what they could get away with,
so they always left a safety factor.
They still aren't sure. No responsible engineer designs a circuit to the
hairy edge of proper operation or reliability. (I know, I know...)

I beg to differ. Here's the typical scene. Engineer designs a
product to the best of his abilities. Everything sorta works, but he
had to stop designing in order to meet an arbitrary deadline so the
boss could comfortably fit in his vacation trip. The design review
committee decides that it's good enough, but the VP of bean counting
announces that the customer has declared that unless we cut out X
number of dollars out of the price, they'll go to the evil competition
in China. Actually, the customer has said no such thing, but since
the VP of bean counting's bonus check is dependent on the product
margin, it magically becomes the official target price.

So, our formerly sane and sober engineer is now tasked with butchering
his own product. Originally designed with a 10+ year component
lifetime and MTBF, he starts by removing almost all his safety factor.
Voltage ratings are cut to the bare minimum. Optional manufacturing
features (JTAG port, test points, documentation, removable fasteners,
etc.) are all removed. Sectional testing is replaced by parametric
testing and sample testing.

This is not science fiction. I've been through two consulting
exercises where this was almost exactly what happened. Nobody wants
to cut corners, but the mechanism for forcing engineers to cut corners
is built into the system. Quality is a luxury these days.

My 30+ year *design* experience has been very different.

I see the problem today as one of folks cutting and pasting
"app notes" together -- letting the component manufacturers
do their engineering for them.

The unfortunate ugly truth is that many of these "typical
applications" are *not* designed well. And, the folks
who may have done the designs aren't available to answer
questions about their designs (and shortcomings thereof).

A "finished" design is usually outsourced to someone/somewhere
with the emphasis on low cost. The vendor *always* assures the
customer that they will produce a quality product.

But, product lifecycles being as short as they are, design defects
never get fed back into the pipeline -- a "new" product has already
replaced the old; a new vendor doing the fab, etc.

The end user is the root of the problem, IMO. They neither demand
quality nor are willing to pay for that quality. With many devices,
they often don't even know how their device is *supposed* to
operate so don't feel emboldened to complain when it *doesn't*
work.

Or, they are all too willing to use the product's failure as an
EXCUSE to buy something new -- "reward" themself. I've seen this
"rationale" all too often.

The "throw-away mentality" is most-likely due to the rising cost of
competent service bumping into the falling cost of electronics. Not to

New products often introduce new features. Why settle for last
year's model when *this* year's model has <blah>?

"Service" is usually not available, locally (for the majority
of clueless consumers). So, now they have to deal with packaging
the device up for shipment ("Gee, I sure wish I had the forethought
to save the original packing materials!"), paying for shipping
(with "tracking"), living without the device (or its replacement)
for the duration of the repair, an unknown repair time *and* cost.

Most "repairs" are board level swaps. And the prices of those
boards are ridiculous.

[E.g. we have avoided purchasing an on-demand hot water heater
out of the *realization* that any failures will be "repaired"
by a PLUMBER. Makes about as much sense as having a carpenter
do your dental work!]

mention that the latter are increasingly difficult to service. The rapid
changes in technology also encourage people to throw out broken stuff.

Yep. When the iPhone arrived, I couldn't believe how many iPaq and
Palm PDA's I saw at the recycler. It's not like the old stuff is no
longer functional or usable. It's just not fashionable any more.

Exactly. The same is true with most consumer kit. Businesses are
even worse -- replacing their IT kit every 2-3 years *just* so
they can buy the latest buggy version of windows... (does that
secretary REALLY need a dual quad core 3GHz machine to type up
business correspondence??)

* Of course, I rarely buy cheap products. Purchases are permanent
investments that "ought" to last forever. This has mostly been the case.

----^^^^^^^^^^ is the operative word, here. Our society has signalled
that an "investment" is "a year or two" (look at wall street and the
tax code). Even wanting to make smart "long term" decisions is
fraught with unexpected risk -- who will stock the replacement
parts for these devices 5 years hence? (sure, you *might* be able
to buy electronic components... but, what about plastic parts, etc.?)

One of my servers has triple redundant power supplies. I pulled
two sets-of-three power supplies from similar servers that were
headed to the scrap pile. If I had to buy one today, I suspect it
would be hundreds of dollars -- *if* I could find one!

I'm a compulsive repairman. Therefore, I rarely buy anything new. I
tend to buy used and broken, fix it, and then use it forever. Once

Ditto. Though only where practical. E.g., I often treat color
printers as disposable -- when my supply of toner/ink runs out,
the printer makes a graceful exit (I refuse to spend $200-300
for a set of cartridges!)

I've been inside, I can usually tell if it's going to last. The stuff
that isn't, is sold or donated. Looking at the photo of the shop, I
don't think there's anything on the shelf that I didn't buy broken and
later fix. Unfortunately, the pile of stuff that I couldn't fix (or
don't have time to fix) is about 3 times as large.

Get rid of it. If I haven't had a pressing enough need to fix something
that is broken, it goes out. Life's too short! :>

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:16:34 -0700, D Yuniskis
<not.going.to.be@seen.com> wrote:

My 30+ year *design* experience has been very different.

To be fair, I haven't designed anything really complicated for many
years. Between about 1973 and 1983, I played RF designer for various
companies. After that, a mixture of repair, speculation, and
consulting. Most of my horror stories and abominations are from "rent
a project engineer" style short term consulting in the last 10 years
or so.

I see the problem today as one of folks cutting and pasting
"app notes" together -- letting the component manufacturers
do their engineering for them.

Yep. I just love "reference design" clones that don't work any better
than what the applications engineer threw together. Some of them look
like test fixtures or evaluation boards, not finished products. With
RF, layout is actually more important than component selection.
However, we're not talking about RF here. It's ordinary mundane
capacitors that are the current problem.

Much to my amazement, I opened a 2 year old Lenovo desktop and found
polymer capacitors around the CPU. Nice. That desktop is going to
last a long time.
<http://www.capacitorlab.com/capacitor-types-polymer/>
The whole mess would go away if manufactories would begin using
polymer caps instead of electrolytics in temperature critical
locations. Too bad they cost a few pennies more, some values are not
available, and availability tricky.

The unfortunate ugly truth is that many of these "typical
applications" are *not* designed well. And, the folks
who may have done the designs aren't available to answer
questions about their designs (and shortcomings thereof).

Ok... confession time. When I was doing RF, I would steal as much as
possible. Motorola had a nifty line of RF application notes, with
designs by Helge Granberg. Most were close, but it still took a while
to shake out the problems. If I had sufficient experience with the
components and applications, I probably could have done better
starting from scratch. However, everyone was pioneering back then.
Any manner of head start was beneficial. Incidentally, I didn't do
any better copying designs from competitors radios. Most of those
barely worked.

Reverse example. Just before I was hired, the company had a problem.
The standard IF frequency of 10.7MHz was too low to be usable for the
rather wide marine band (156 to 163MHz). 21.4MHz was the next
available frequency, but none of the commodity integrated IF chips
would work reliably at 21.4 at the time. Something in between was
needed. After many meetings, the high command got tired of the
technical discussion and conjured a frequency out of thin air. It as
16.9MHz which was his daughters birthday. Orders for crystal filters
and offset oscillators were duly ordered. They worked, but the choice
of frequency was horrible, resulting in major birdies (spurious junk)
on top of common channels. Some tweaking helped, but it never really
went away.

Meanwhile, the filter sales droid leaked our choice of IF frequency to
all his other customers, also known as the competition. Since
everyone else had the same problem, they presumed we knew what we were
doing and immediately adopted 16.9Mhz as their new IF frequency. I'm
sure they weren't amused with the results.

A "finished" design is usually outsourced to someone/somewhere
with the emphasis on low cost. The vendor *always* assures the
customer that they will produce a quality product.

The vendor always lies. Most of the data sheets are science fiction.
Production parts never resemble the engineering samples. Welcome to
life in hell.

Long ago, Fairchild Semi did just about everything they could to ruin
my project. In retaliation, I systematically designed their parts out
of the product line. I kept records and kept the lying sales droid up
to date on how much in sales I cost his employer. I don't recall the
total, but it was something like $2 million in the first year. One
would expect that someone would notice or care, but nothing ever
happened except for a visit by a well dressed incompetent that
delivered numerous promises and then disappeared.

But, product lifecycles being as short as they are, design defects
never get fed back into the pipeline -- a "new" product has already
replaced the old; a new vendor doing the fab, etc.

Yep. That's also a major problem. Nobody wants to fix an obsolete
product when its replacement is in the pipeline. In some industries
(i.e. hard disk drive), sometime 3 generations of replacement products
are in the pipeline at the same time.

The end user is the root of the problem, IMO. They neither demand
quality nor are willing to pay for that quality.

Blame the victim? Much as I hate it, I agree with your assessment. I
suspect that simple economics is at the root of the problem. If you
can buy 4 junk contrivances for the price of one quality product, that
becomes a real temptation. With the economy in bad shape, going cheap
versus going quality is no longer an option.

With many devices,
they often don't even know how their device is *supposed* to
operate so don't feel emboldened to complain when it *doesn't*
work.

History will some day remember Microsoft Windoze as having trained the
population to accept mediocrity as normal. There are many things in
life where we simply have never seen quality. I never liked wine
because I always seem to end up drinking junk. My favored method of
cooking salmon produced dry rubbery fish, which I assumed was normal,
until I had some that was properly cooked. However, I got my start
with various Unix mutations, so I never got suckered into thinking
Windoze, MacOS, or OS/X were anything more than a bad imitation. If
you could give the GUM (great unwashed masses) a taste of quality, I'm
moderately sure they will demand better products.

Or, they are all too willing to use the product's failure as an
EXCUSE to buy something new -- "reward" themself. I've seen this
"rationale" all too often.

Yeah, I have the problem myself. I have a 1989 vintage SCO Unix
3.2v4.2 server running in my office that refuses to die. I keep
wishing that something would fail, but it just keeps running. I had 9
months of uptime before I had to move things around and start over. I
keep wanting to replace it with a shiny new Linux box, but only after
it fails. My previous vehicle went for about 290,000 miles.

New products often introduce new features. Why settle for last
year's model when *this* year's model has <blah>?

Yech. Because the new features are often useless or cause side
effects, such as speed and uptime problems.

"Service" is usually not available, locally (for the majority
of clueless consumers). So, now they have to deal with packaging
the device up for shipment ("Gee, I sure wish I had the forethought
to save the original packing materials!"), paying for shipping
(with "tracking"), living without the device (or its replacement)
for the duration of the repair, an unknown repair time *and* cost.

Sure, but some things are getting smaller and companies are becoming
more efficient at dealing with failures. Many companies have a flat
rate exchange program. That's not going to work for high ticket HDTV
monsters, but it does work for smaller devices. For example,
HP/Compaq ships out an empty padded shipping container for warranty
repairs.

Most "repairs" are board level swaps. And the prices of those
boards are ridiculous.

I'm still doing board level repairs, but I lose money on all of them.
The time and effort necessary to just get access to the PCB is often a
major problem. Products are just not designed to be repairable any
more. I just ripped apart a Roland D-5 junk keyboard synthesizer.
Wires and cables on all 4 sides of the sole PCB. No slack or service
loops anywhere, which means I can't run the board while inside the
unit (without building custom extension cables). So how much more
would it have cost to add a few inches of cable length? More than
Roland was willing to spend.

You would think that high end products would be more repairable, but
apparently not. I tore into an Icom IC-7000 radio. Street price
$1300. The mounting screws would either bind or strip the threads in
the soft aluminum casting. Many of the major components were buried
under layers of unrelated parts and pieces that had to tediously
removed. The driver hybrid was screwed to the casting with no access
holes through the PCB. A large number of leads had to be unsoldered
in order to gain access to the mounting screws. Basically, it's a
nice radio with absolutely no consideration for service and repair.

[E.g. we have avoided purchasing an on-demand hot water heater
out of the *realization* that any failures will be "repaired"
by a PLUMBER. Makes about as much sense as having a carpenter
do your dental work!]

Out of curiosity, if not a plumber, whom would expect to hire to
repair your on-demand water heater? Some of my friends are getting
into solar contracting and are doing everything from wind to solar
electric, including some really complicating plumbing for the water
heater. It's not really that difficult if one is willing to learn.
While I don't do well at plumbing, it's not unusual for me to do a
service call to repair a computah, and end up working on the printers,
network hardware, cell phones, PDA's, backup drives, UPS, game
machines, wireless, and all other manner of marginally related
hardware. While the losers specialize, those with a clue are picking
up adjacent technologies.

Exactly. The same is true with most consumer kit. Businesses are
even worse -- replacing their IT kit every 2-3 years *just* so
they can buy the latest buggy version of windows... (does that
secretary REALLY need a dual quad core 3GHz machine to type up
business correspondence??)

No. But they need it to run MS Office 2010, which requires Windoze 7,
which requires major horsepower. To a hardware geek (like me), the
whole thing seems backwards, but to the business owner, his
requirements are applications driven. He needs to run a short list of
major apps, they require a particular OS, and that requires a hardware
upgrade.

However, you are correct about one item. One of the major reasons to
upgrade is to obtain the latest release of the operating system in the
vain hope that it will have less bugs than its predecessor. Miracles
and bug free operating systems are possible, but unlikely. Still,
hope springs eternal.

One of my servers has triple redundant power supplies. I pulled
two sets-of-three power supplies from similar servers that were
headed to the scrap pile. If I had to buy one today, I suspect it
would be hundreds of dollars -- *if* I could find one!

I do quite well searching for obsolete components and parts on eBay
and various web sites. I don't recall buying much directly from
vendors in many years.

Ditto. Though only where practical. E.g., I often treat color
printers as disposable -- when my supply of toner/ink runs out,
the printer makes a graceful exit (I refuse to spend $200-300
for a set of cartridges!)

Sigh. I buy the refill kits and replacement toner refill protection
reset chip on eBay for my various ancient color laser printers (HP
2500 and 2600). I can usually refill a cartridge 3 times before it's
no longer with the effort. Looking on eBay, clone cartridges are
about $30/ea while toner bottles are about $24/ea. That's quite a bit
cheaper than new cartridges.

Get rid of it. If I haven't had a pressing enough need to fix something
that is broken, it goes out. Life's too short! :

Yeah, I know. I just can't get myself to throw away (recycle) the
junk. However, I'm doing it. Most of the antique machines are gone.
I'm keeping bits and pieces that might be useful, just in case. The
rest is sloooooowly going to the recycler. Sniff.

Whew....

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

On 12/16/2010 1:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Yeah, I know. I just can't get myself to throw away (recycle) the
junk. However, I'm doing it. Most of the antique machines are gone.
I'm keeping bits and pieces that might be useful, just in case. The
rest is sloooooowly going to the recycler. Sniff.

Whew....

Although... Jeff threatened to fill a 40' roll off with stuff
and deliver it to me.

Fortunately, I'm out of reach now having moved.

Jeff
the other other one.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Our formerly sane and sober engineer is now tasked with butchering
his own product. Originally designed with a 10+ year component
lifetime and MTBF, he starts by removing almost all his safety factor.
Voltage ratings are cut to the bare minimum. Optional manufacturing
features (JTAG port, test points, documentation, removable fasteners,
etc.) are all removed. Sectional testing is replaced by parametric
testing and sample testing.

This is not science fiction. I've been through two consulting
exercises where this was almost exactly what happened.
Nobody wants to cut corners, but the mechanism for forcing
engineers to cut corners is built into the system. Quality is a
luxury these days.

Ouch. That's frightening to hear. I guess companies figure one lawsuit is
cheaper than the higher (ie, less-competitive) price of 100,000 units.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

When the iPhone arrived, I couldn't believe how many iPaq
and Palm PDA's I saw at the recycler. It's not like the old
stuff is no longer functional or usable. It's just not fashionable
any more.

I still have my Palm Tungsten T3 and iRiver H120. Not cheap, but they're
both "a-workin still" after seven years. (Not even a battery replacement.)

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeffrey Angus wrote:

On 12/16/2010 1:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Yeah, I know. I just can't get myself to throw away (recycle) the
junk. However, I'm doing it. Most of the antique machines are gone.
I'm keeping bits and pieces that might be useful, just in case. The
rest is sloooooowly going to the recycler. Sniff.

Whew....

Although... Jeff threatened to fill a 40' roll off with stuff
and deliver it to me.

Fortunately, I'm out of reach now having moved.

I thought that was what the overhead storage at your shop was for?
;-)


--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 04:43:44 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Our formerly sane and sober engineer is now tasked with butchering
his own product. Originally designed with a 10+ year component
lifetime and MTBF, he starts by removing almost all his safety factor.
Voltage ratings are cut to the bare minimum. Optional manufacturing
features (JTAG port, test points, documentation, removable fasteners,
etc.) are all removed. Sectional testing is replaced by parametric
testing and sample testing.

This is not science fiction. I've been through two consulting
exercises where this was almost exactly what happened.
Nobody wants to cut corners, but the mechanism for forcing
engineers to cut corners is built into the system. Quality is a
luxury these days.

Ouch. That's frightening to hear. I guess companies figure one lawsuit is
cheaper than the higher (ie, less-competitive) price of 100,000 units.

I need a rant today (instead of doing my billing).

I don't know about the success rate of litigation for quality issues.
If someone was injured as a result of an inferior product, I could see
some litigatory relief being necessary. However, if the product was
basically junk, it would take a class action lawsuit to make legal
action worthwhile. The only people that benefit from those are the
attorneys, who actively search for potentially defective products.
Even so, the only companies that seem to get stuck with class action
suits are those with product liability insurance, which insures that
the attorneys will get paid. I've been involved in a few class action
suits and have yet to see anything resembling a full reimbursement.
Usually, it's a coupon that entitles me to buy another piece of junk
from the company at a miserable discount if I supply them with all my
personal information.

The problem from the company perspective was formerly that of
diminishing returns. How much additional cost will be necessary to
insure an acceptable rate for return. Some laptop manufacturers are
more than happy to ship laptops with failing BGA solder connections.
My guess is about 5% of these laptops fail within the warranty period
and perhaps 15% during the extended warranty period. To perhaps cut
this failure rate in half, would probably add $5 in cost for slower
cool down after freon reflow soldering and maybe some vibration
testing. Over the huge number of laptops sold, that's a fairly big
price hit when multiplied by the retail markup. So, it's cheaper to
replace the failing laptops, than it is to fix the damn problem. It
also keeps the repair people (like me) in business. The laptops that
survived the warranty period are almost certain to fail later. My
guess is about 30% failure in the 3 years following warranty
expiration. That should normally give a bad name to the company
product, but doesn't because users simply assume that a laptop is only
suppose to last a short while. Or, maybe they thought they abused it
by using it normally. I had one person drag in a known problem laptop
(HP dv9000 series). Even after I explained the cause of the failure,
his first inclination was to drive to immediately Costco and buy
another HP.

So, where are we headed? My guess is better warranties, better
contracts, fabulous extended service plans, and instant overnight
exchanges, while the quality of the product deteriorates to the point
of minimum acceptability. Actually, it will drop to the point where
the company support phone line starts ringing constantly. That's how
companies know that there's a real problem. If the phone doesn't
ring, then there's nothing wrong and it's safe to continue shipping
junk.

I'm always amused when companies and products are highly rated as a
result of providing superior service and support. If the product was
any good, it wouldn't need service and support. I'm very suspicious
of any company that does these well as they're probably trying to
cover up a marginal product.

Merry Christmas and Happy Extended Warranty Service.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS