Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Rod Speed]

Mark Jerde <MarkJerde@nospam.nospam> wrote:

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
- Automobiles needing constant maintenance.

No they didnt.

(Why was there a "Service Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant* service.)

And you dont need one on every corner even if they did.
Even you should have noticed that they did manage to
get further than the next corner the vast bulk of the time.

- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

And that is a lot more than to the next corner.

Lately, having gone over 80k miles on tires, and no service in 150k miles, it's true:

"They Don't Build Them Like They Used To -- Thank God!" ;-)

 

[Ignoramus16071]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:57:15 +1100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet
jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.
Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these
"designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be
made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking, that it will fail, then it
was designed to fail. How can you say that that design was not
deliberate?

i

If anyone has suggestions for a really good
three section leather wallet, I will appreciate.

 

[Rod Speed]

Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote
James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and
"designed to fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look
for signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.

Nope.

Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.

Nope, just bad design.

Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see
these "designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that
they could be made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle.
It broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra
1-2 cents, they could have a few mm more plastic around the
hinges so that they hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it
is unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred
$$ in cash etc, which does not affect credit card pockets).
Again, at the cost of perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could
have been made into a better wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking, that it will fail, then it was designed to fail.

Wrong, most obviousy with the card pockets that the cards wont fit into.

Anyone with a clue would return a wallet like that, so there
is absolutely no point in designing it like that deliberately.

How can you say that that design was not deliberate?

Because it clearly wasnt. Novel concept I realise.

 

[Mark Jerde]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:515075F1ij9kcU1@mid.individual.net...

Mark Jerde <MarkJerde@nospam.nospam> wrote:

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
- Automobiles needing constant maintenance.

No they didnt.

Rod -- Please realize newsgroup messages about "The Good Old Days" (we
weren't good, we weren't old, and we're talking about the nights --
(someone)) have certain artistic license. ;-) Of course most vehicles
could make it more than from one corner to the next. But there is also no
denying the fact I froze my buns & fingertips off many a South Dakota winter
evening working on "Timing" and "Points" and "Condenser" in the 1970s.

(Why was there a "Service Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed
*constant* service.)

And you dont need one on every corner even if they did.
Even you should have noticed that they did manage to
get further than the next corner the vast bulk of the time.

<Sigh> Of course I was exaggerating. These are newsgroups. ;-)

But the essense of my post is true. My dad's cars (when I was a kid) needed
*constant* servicing compared to mine (as a grown up).

- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

And that is a lot more than to the next corner.

Maybe knot -- ;-) -- I know people that live more than 6 miles from
their next door neighbor.

"They Don't Build Them Like They Used To -- Thank God!" ;-)

I stand by this. I have three TVs in my house and their _combined_ _cost_
is less than IMO an inflation-adusted *repair* of a 1960's B&W console TV.

I recall $600.00 CD players, and it wasn't that long ago. I also know
modern portable CD players: one chip and a bunch of membrane switches.
If/when something goes wrong, toss the $35 player & get a new one. You
can't repair a single-chip device.

-- Mark

 

[Ignoramus16071]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:24:22 +1100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote
James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and
"designed to fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look
for signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.

Nope.

Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.

Nope, just bad design.

Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see
these "designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that
they could be made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle.
It broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra
1-2 cents, they could have a few mm more plastic around the
hinges so that they hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it
is unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred
$$ in cash etc, which does not affect credit card pockets).
Again, at the cost of perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could
have been made into a better wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking, that it will fail, then it was designed to fail.

Wrong, most obviousy with the card pockets that the cards wont fit into.

Anyone with a clue would return a wallet like that, so there
is absolutely no point in designing it like that deliberately.

Except that I have it as a gift without a receipt.

How can you say that that design was not deliberate?

Because it clearly wasnt. Novel concept I realise.

Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

 

[b]

Rod Speed ha escrito:

B
Electronic CRT chassis are so flimsy that if you take the chassis out the plastic wont support the
CRT.

Doesnt need to, the CRT is the guts of the system everything is attached to.

.....You haven't repaired many of the later CRT sets then have you?

So progress is both good and bad.
Not much bad with electronics.

Rubbish. Take a look at a repair shop dealing with any mass produced,
mid- to low- priced electronic item (which seem to make up the bulk of
sales) and you'll typically see : electrolytics failed in TVs and set
top boxes/decoders due to proximity to heat, (or just poor or poorly
rated components), transistors failing due to skimping on metal heat
sinks, vcrs with plastic parts breaking, mobile phones and mp3 players
with defective jacks and buttons etc etc.
What we have are many more features than before. and at cheaper price,
and often in smaller machines so there is progress in that sense, but
build quality and longevity are WELL down, coincidentally along with
parts support and repairability, which means more failure, more
landfill material.
As I mentioned earlier , I don't think it is planned obsolescence, just
a desire for increased sales and profits (which any business aspires
to) and a lack of regard for the environment, playing on the ignorance
of consumers about the REAL cost of all this replace not repair
mentality.

-B.

 

[Rod Speed]

b <reverend_rogers@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Electronic CRT chassis are so flimsy that if you take
the chassis out the plastic wont support the CRT.

Doesnt need to, the CRT is the guts of the system everything is attached to.

....You haven't repaired many of the later CRT sets then have you?

Guess who has just got egg all over its face, as always ?

So progress is both good and bad.

Not much bad with electronics.

Rubbish.

Nope.

Take a look at a repair shop dealing with any mass produced,
mid- to low- priced electronic item (which seem to make up the
bulk of sales) and you'll typically see : electrolytics failed in TVs

Nothing to do with what was being discussed, PROGRESS.

Failed electros have been around ever since they were invented.

and set top boxes/decoders due to proximity to heat,
(or just poor or poorly rated components),

Fuck all of those fail. No point in looking in repair shops, they only see the
failures. What matters is the percentage of failures. And that is very low.

PCs in spades.

transistors failing due to skimping on metal heat sinks,

You dont see much of that either.

vcrs with plastic parts breaking,

They always did.

mobile phones and mp3 players with defective jacks and buttons etc etc.

Fuck all of those too.

What we have are many more features than before. and at
cheaper price, and often in smaller machines so there is progress
in that sense, but build quality and longevity are WELL down,

Bullshit.

coincidentally along with parts support

Because they dont fail much anymore.

and repairability,

Because they dont fail much anymore.

which means more failure,

No it doesnt. The lack of repairability often means increased reliability
most obviously with sealed plugpacks and moulded power cords.

more landfill material.

Thats mostly due to changed tastes like with CRT
monitors that work fine being replaced with LCDs etc.

As I mentioned earlier , I don't think it is planned
obsolescence, just a desire for increased sales and profits

Its actually a desire for competitive pricing which does sometimes
see the designer getting too carried away doing that.

(which any business aspires to) and a lack of regard for the environment,

The environment is completely irrelevant. Discarded electronic
devices are a trivial part of the total waste and manufacturing
stream and the environmental downsides are back in china
with the manufacturing anyway.

playing on the ignorance of consumers about the
REAL cost of all this replace not repair mentality.

There is no 'playing on', its the consumers who have decided that
with new stuff so cheap, it makes absolutely no sense whatever
to pay an expensive first world tech to repair something like a
VCR when a new one would cost less and have a full warranty.

 

[Rod Speed]

Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote
James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and
"designed to fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look
for signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.

Nope.

Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.

Nope, just bad design.

Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see
these "designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that
they could be made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle.
It broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra
1-2 cents, they could have a few mm more plastic around the
hinges so that they hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it
is unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred
$$ in cash etc, which does not affect credit card pockets).
Again, at the cost of perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could
have been made into a better wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking,
that it will fail, then it was designed to fail.

Wrong, most obviousy with the card pockets that the cards wont fit into.

Anyone with a clue would return a wallet like that, so there
is absolutely no point in designing it like that deliberately.

Except that I have it as a gift without a receipt.

Irrelevant to the vast bulk of their sales.

How can you say that that design was not deliberate?

Because it clearly wasnt. Novel concept I realise.

Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

No one is going to design a wallet deliberately with card pockets that wont
take cards. Thats always going to be a design fuckup or manufacturing fuckup.

The only thing you did manage to get right was your nick.

 

[Rod Speed]

Mark Jerde <MarkJerde@nospam.nospam> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Mark Jerde <MarkJerde@nospam.nospam> wrote

I recall the 1960's:
- TVs going out until a repairman with a bunch of tubes showed up.
- Automobiles needing constant maintenance.

No they didnt.

Rod -- Please realize newsgroup messages about "The Good Old Days" (we weren't good, we weren't
old, and we're talking about the nights
-- (someone)) have certain artistic license. ;-)

Pathetic, really.

Of course most vehicles could make it more than from one corner to the next. But there is also no
denying the fact I froze my buns & fingertips off many a South Dakota winter evening working on
"Timing" and "Points" and "Condenser" in the 1970s.

Irrelevant to the silly claim about why there
was a service station on every corner.

And I didnt spend much time on my points and timing in the 60s.

Condensers in spades.

(Why was there a "Service Station" on every corner? Hint: Cars needed *constant* service.)

And you dont need one on every corner even if they did.
Even you should have noticed that they did manage to
get further than the next corner the vast bulk of the time.

Sigh> Of course I was exaggerating. These are newsgroups. ;-)

But the essense of my post is true.

Nope, there was one on every corner and often more
than one on many corners, for a completely different
reason. Nothing to do with the servicing at all.

My dad's cars (when I was a kid) needed *constant* servicing compared to mine (as a grown up).

Nothing like constant and I was grown up in the 60s too.

Yes, modern cars need a lot less routine maintenance, but its silly
to claim that those in the 60s needed CONSTANT maintenance.

- 20,000 miles on bias-ply tires was more than you could expect.

And that is a lot more than to the next corner.

Maybe knot -- ;-) -- I know people that live more than 6 miles from their next door
neighbor.

Irrelevant to the silly claim about corners.

"They Don't Build Them Like They Used To -- Thank God!" ;-)

I stand by this.

Sure, and I didnt even comment on that bit, just the other silly stuff.

I have three TVs in my house and their _combined_ _cost_ is less than IMO an inflation-adusted
*repair* of a 1960's B&W console TV.

And need a lot less maintenance too, like none.

I recall $600.00 CD players, and it wasn't that long ago. I also know modern portable CD players:
one chip and a bunch of membrane switches. If/when something goes wrong, toss the $35 player & get
a new one. You can't repair a single-chip device.

Depends on what broke. Whether there is any
point in bothering is another matter entirely.

 

[James Sweet]

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these "designed
to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be made to last
much better for the same cost?


Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

There's the key, an extra few cents. 2 cents times 2 million kettles and
you're talking 40 grand, that's not minuscule, even for a big company.

10 cents is even more significant, when you're manufacturing millions of
things, pennies *do* matter. You can get something that cost an extra 10
cents to make, but it will cost you an extra 10 bucks to buy and the
average consumer not knowing the difference will buy the cheaper one.

It's all about offering the lowest price and making the most profit per
sale, they don't intentionally try to make it break, they just don't
care if it does so long as it lasts through the warranty.

 

[lsmartino]

clare ha escrito:

On 15 Jan 2007 19:53:30 -0800, "lsmartino" <luismartino76@gmail.com
wrote:

A lithium cell WILL produce 3V regardless of it´s type. A rechargeable
lithium battery or a non rechargeable one will have the same voltage
output. That´s what the chemistry produces, and you can´t reduce that
voltage chemically, so they must have some built in electronic method
to reduce the voltage to the standard 1.5 V a AA cell should produce.

You need to learn to do your research before you make statements you
cannot support. You've proven yourself to be a blowhard.

I was mistaken and I admit it, but that doesn´t make me a "blowhard".
Show me in which part of my posts I presented myself as an specialist
in anything. Your post was accurate, but this part was completely
unnecessary.
Wasn't responding to you with that comment (at least knowingly).

I understand you. It happened to be just a miss quoted reply.

 

[Ignoramus16071]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:13:34 +1100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote
Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

No one is going to design a wallet deliberately with card pockets that wont
take cards. Thats always going to be a design fuckup or manufacturing fuckup.

The only thing you did manage to get right was your nick.

You do not u nderstand what is the meaning of words such as "intent"
or "intentional". An act is intentional if its outcome is known. So if
tey make a wallet that would not hold credit cards, or a tea kettle
with obviously inadequate hinges -- the outcome is known and that is,
therefore, an intentional outcome.

i

 

[Ignoramus16071]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:04:59 GMT, James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to fail"
theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty. Such
as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these "designed
to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be made to last
much better for the same cost?


Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

There's the key, an extra few cents. 2 cents times 2 million kettles and
you're talking 40 grand, that's not minuscule, even for a big company.

10 cents is even more significant, when you're manufacturing millions of
things, pennies *do* matter. You can get something that cost an extra 10
cents to make, but it will cost you an extra 10 bucks to buy and the
average consumer not knowing the difference will buy the cheaper one.

It's all about offering the lowest price and making the most profit per
sale, they don't intentionally try to make it break, they just don't
care if it does so long as it lasts through the warranty.

If they know what happens with their product -- and they do -- then it
IS intentional.

If I set a fire on my kitchen floor, hoping to cook a pig that would
not fit in a stove, knowing that my house would burn down, and the
house burns down, the result is intentional -- even though the fire
was started to cook a pig. Same here -- if they try to save 2 cents
and make products that they KNOW do not perform their intended
purpose, then making substandard products is intentional on their
part.

That's why I do not patronize cutthroat retailers such as Walmart.
Because they are looking to screw ME by selling products that do not
perform their intended purpose (and by forcing manufacturers to make
such via abusive methods). I do not like such capitalists and to not
want to give them any of my business. I would rather pay 3x more to
businesses such as McMaster-Carr, or Bosch, etc, to get a product that
actually works.

My experience with Harbor Freight has been spotty, but most of the
products that I bought from them, do work as advertised.

i

 

[Rick Brandt]

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:13:34 +1100, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

You do not u nderstand what is the meaning of words such as "intent"
or "intentional". An act is intentional if its outcome is known. So if
tey make a wallet that would not hold credit cards, or a tea kettle
with obviously inadequate hinges -- the outcome is known and that is,
therefore, an intentional outcome.

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence".

(or something similar)

 

[Rod Speed]

Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote

Yeah, very novel concept of people making stuff that cannot possibly
perform as advertised, but claiming that it "was not deliberate".

No one is going to design a wallet deliberately with card pockets
that wont take cards. Thats always going to be a design fuckup or
manufacturing fuckup.

The only thing you did manage to get right was your nick.

You do not u nderstand what is the meaning of words such as "intent" or "intentional".

You dont.

An act is intentional if its outcome is known.

Wrong. That act was intentional if they were intending
to make the card pockets too small to take cards.

No one would actually be that stupid.

The problem must have been with the manufacturing process
that was used after the intention to produce a usable wallet.

So if tey make a wallet that would not hold credit cards,
or a tea kettle with obviously inadequate hinges -- the
outcome is known and that is, therefore, an intentional outcome.

Wrong. No one would be stupid enough to deliberately make
the wallet with card pockets that couldnt have cards put in them.

You dont know that anyone intended the tea kettle hinge to break either.

Its MUCH more likely that they decided that the amount of plastic
used was adequate and that it wouldnt break, and that they got that
wrong, or a weaker plastic was used without realising that it would break.

 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:13:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

You arent cooling them properly.

BS. They have NEVER gone over 40 degrees C. They live year round
between 65 and 72 degrees F (talking about my own systems)

Then there is some other problem with the system
they are used in, most likely the power supply.
Nope - the particular units in question are running on dual conversion

UPS power - a perfectly clean and seperately derived power source.
Also running high end SMPS power supplies.

They start losing sectors after about a year, and
reach the undependable stage after 2 or three.

Have fun explaining how come others dont get that effect with those drives.

They do.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Rod Speed]

Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:04:59 GMT, James Sweet
jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ignoramus16071 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:59 GMT, James Sweet
jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ignoramus16071 wrote:

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and "designed to
fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look for
signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.
Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.


i


Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see these
"designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that they could be
made to last much better for the same cost?


Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle. It
broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because
it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra 1-2 cents,
they could have a few mm more plastic around the hinges so that they
hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it is
unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally
too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred $$ in cash
etc,
which does not affect credit card pockets). Again, at the cost of
perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could have been made into a better
wallet.

If anyone has suggestions for a really good three section leather
wallet, I will appreciate.

i

There's the key, an extra few cents. 2 cents times 2 million kettles
and you're talking 40 grand, that's not minuscule, even for a big
company.

10 cents is even more significant, when you're manufacturing
millions of things, pennies *do* matter. You can get something that
cost an extra 10 cents to make, but it will cost you an extra 10
bucks to buy and the average consumer not knowing the difference
will buy the cheaper one.

It's all about offering the lowest price and making the most profit
per sale, they don't intentionally try to make it break, they just
don't care if it does so long as it lasts through the warranty.

If they know what happens with their product -- and they do -- then it
IS intentional.

No one is stupid enough to design a wallet with card
pockets that they know arent big enough to take cards.

If I set a fire on my kitchen floor, hoping to cook a pig that would
not fit in a stove, knowing that my house would burn down, and the
house burns down, the result is intentional -- even though the fire
was started to cook a pig. Same here

Nope.

-- if they try to save 2 cents and make products that
they KNOW do not perform their intended purpose,

You dont know that they did KNOW that. The much more
likely possibility is that they decided that the amount of
plastic used was adequate and it turned out that it isnt.

then making substandard products is intentional on their part.

You dont dont know that they did know its substandard.

That's why I do not patronize cutthroat retailers such as Walmart.

More fool you.

Because they are looking to screw ME by selling
products that do not perform their intended purpose

Corse the bulk of them do.

(and by forcing manufacturers to make such via abusive methods).

Walmart isnt stupid enough to deliberately sell stuff
that will have to be exchanged under warranty.

I do not like such capitalists and to not want to give them any of my business.

Bet that will have the Walmart suits pouring from their
windows like lemmings as soon as they read your post.

I would rather pay 3x more to businesses such as McMaster-Carr,
or Bosch, etc, to get a product that actually works.

The products that Walmart sells work.

My experience with Harbor Freight has been spotty, but most
of the products that I bought from them, do work as advertised.

True in spades of what most buy in Walmart.

 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:21:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of years.

Engineering data is the heart of a business.

Not data thats a handful of years old.

Management often forgets that.

Then a competitor eats them alive.

Bet you cant list any examples of that with data thats older than a handful of years old.

I sure can.

Nope, you couldnt.

I milwright designs a feed mill. Back in 1966. He rebuilds that mill in 1981.
He builds 5 more mills between those dates, and onother 12 since.
His office burns down and he loses all his engineering drawings.

You cant use a single design over all that time.
Tell that to the guys that build the elevator portion of the mill. All

the pipe transitions etc. have been standardized for many years by
these guys. They designed something that works, that is relatively
simple to build, and they just keep right on using it.

or the drawings get soaked when a pipe breaks. How much
were those engineering drawings from 1965 worth today?
Hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Fantasy. You cant use a single fixed design over all that time.

Another firm with current engineering drawings
will eat him alive when a new mill is up for tender.
That's why he invests in a large format scanner and enters ALL the old
drawings into cad, at very high cost, and keeps 2 offsite backups.

Or take a land surveyor's office.
ALL the surveys done in the past 35+ years are kept onsite, and many are
referred to daily to tie in new surveys etc. What would it cost to regenerate
even a small fraction of those survey plans? What is their current value???
Significantly higher than the original cost to produce the survey.

Adequately covered by his original MOST.


Anthony Matonak wrote:
John Husvar wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
Archival storage of data is a BIG deal that the industry doesn't
like to talk about.

Most companies data isn't worth anything after only a handful of
years.

Well, I suppose one could print and store all all the data records
on acid-free paper and then physically go find the ones they
wanted. Shouldn't take more than a medium-sized army of clerks
and only a small hollowed mountain range for the storage.

The absolute best storage is microfilm or some variant of it.
You're pretty much assured that no matter what happens with
technology that you'll still be able to read it, even decades
later. You can buy computer microfilm printers. Direct print
to microfilm, no developing required.

Anthony

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51590sF1ht3utU1@mid.individual.net...

Wrong. No one would be stupid enough to deliberately make
the wallet with card pockets that couldnt have cards put in them.

I've seen Chinese made devices such as flashlights that won't take Chinese
made batteries as they are too long!






--

 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:24:22 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 <ignoramus16071@NOSPAM.16071.invalid> wrote
James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote
Ignoramus16071 wrote

TO the skeptics of the "planned obsolescence" and
"designed to fail" theory, I have a simple suggestion.

Take household machines from trash and take them apart. Look
for signs of above mentioned behaviours -- and you will find plenty.

Nope.

Such as parts that are obviously designed to fail.

Nope, just bad design.

Designed to fail, or designed to be cheap? When you see
these "designed to fail" parts, does it often appear that
they could be made to last much better for the same cost?

Well, let me give you one example. We had a electric tea kettle.
It broke the hinge on the lid. Postmortem indicated that it broke
because it lacked material around the hinge. At the cost of extra
1-2 cents, they could have a few mm more plastic around the
hinges so that they hold up better.

The extra cost is minuscule.

Another example, I received a KMart wallet as a gift and it
is unusable -- the credit card pockets are too tight and it is
generally too tight for money also(I like to carry a few hundred
$$ in cash etc, which does not affect credit card pockets).
Again, at the cost of perhaps 10 cents per wallet, it could
have been made into a better wallet.

Both of those are just lousy design, not planned
obsolescence or designed deliberately to fail.

If it is obvious, to a layman, by looking, that it will fail, then it was designed to fail.

Wrong, most obviousy with the card pockets that the cards wont fit into.

Anyone with a clue would return a wallet like that, so there
is absolutely no point in designing it like that deliberately.

How can you say that that design was not deliberate?

Because it clearly wasnt. Novel concept I realise.

Just not designed for american sized money and cards. Would likely

hold the currency of half the world with no problem. Ditto for the
cards?? Mabee.
Part of the "global economy".
ANd you can't buy an american made leather wallet any more - at least
I haven't seen Canadian or American made ones in over 5 years.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com