On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:45:45 -0400, Ralph Mowery
<rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <seg6kh$113m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com
>says...
>>
>> Once worked for a company that build space stuff.
>> We got a call from ESA about some communication equipment that stopped working, was urgent they were testing a spacecraft, launch window..
>>
>> Went there, 10 minutes to locate a defective capacitor.
>> So I said: this cap 10nF 100V we have this, can replace it now.
>> Oh No, this needs to be space compatible, whole thing had to be.. would need to go through the whole administration process,
>> Was ground equipment you know.
>> Sigh
>>
>> And you wonder why Webb is not flying?
>>
>> ....
>>
>>
>
>Sounds about like a story from about 20 years ago. The military needed
>a diode for a radar unit. The diode is a common one and can be found
>almost everywhere. Even the local Radio Shack store had them in stock.
>
>However the diode had to be 'certified'. There were none in stock in
>any of the military supply parts. Call to the maker and they did not
>have any. The diode company made one for them. However they could not
>make just one and had to make many. Cost several thousand or more
>dollars just to get that 10 Cent part.

I saw one study that found that JAN-TX (highest military grade)
transistors were less reliable than ordinary 2N parts.

The military are in fact less picky about this than they once were.
COTS.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

In article <segs9t$q7v$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
says...
> However the diode had to be 'certified'. There were none in stock in
> > any of the military supply parts. Call to the maker and they did not
> > have any. The diode company made one for them. However they could not
> > make just one and had to make many. Cost several thousand or more
> > dollars just to get that 10 Cent part.
>
> Have you never been sold "counterfeit" parts? Or, parts that
> didn't meet their stated specs?
>
>

I have bought some transistors from China that did not work correctly
and when replaced by a 'reliable' US company the same number worked just
fine.

I know a man that bought some transistors from China and all 6 of them
were bad.

However if one buys from a known company that tries to keep good parts
to sell then the parts should meet the specs. Even buying certified
parts does not mean that one defective part may slip by from time to
time.

Where I worked there are thousands of flouresent tubes for light. They
buy name brand tubes. One day me and another were replacing some and
out of about 10 boxes one box of about 15 or 20 tubes had about half of
them bad.

In article <segs17$mrr$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
says...
>
> Remember, juries aren't always rational. The guy who
> has suffered some significant loss (injury) can command
> more sympathy than the impersonal corporation "intent on
> profit"! Even if the injured party was a frigging idiot!
>
>
>

Right. At work we were always having talks about safety. On was where
some idiot was using a ladder. It had all kinds of warning stickers on
it.

The idiot put the ladder up with one leg in a frozen cow pile. The sun
came out and warmed the cow pile up enough the ladder slipped and the
idiot fell. Sued and the jury awarded him some money. Guess the ladder
compay forgot the do not put ladder leg in frozen cow shit sticker.

On 8/5/2021 7:56 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <segs9t$q7v$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
> says...
>> However the diode had to be 'certified'. There were none in stock in
>>> any of the military supply parts. Call to the maker and they did not
>>> have any. The diode company made one for them. However they could not
>>> make just one and had to make many. Cost several thousand or more
>>> dollars just to get that 10 Cent part.
>>
>> Have you never been sold "counterfeit" parts? Or, parts that
>> didn't meet their stated specs?
>
> I have bought some transistors from China that did not work correctly
> and when replaced by a 'reliable' US company the same number worked just
> fine.
>
> I know a man that bought some transistors from China and all 6 of them
> were bad.

I've heard tales of components that were just blobs of plastic
with leadframes -- no silicon inside!

> However if one buys from a known company that tries to keep good parts
> to sell then the parts should meet the specs.

Who is making the purchase decision? I'd typically only be involved in
the purchase of prototyping parts. Thereafter, it was Manufacturing's
responsibility. And, the buyer/purchasing agent was largely ignorant of
"electronics" (as they had many other types of parts and supplies
that they had to purchase; do you keep someone on staff JUST to handle
electronic components? another for pneumatics? raw materials?
fasteners? etc.)

> Even buying certified
> parts does not mean that one defective part may slip by from time to
> time.

Are you capable of verifying that the parts you bought *do*
meet their stated specs? That they won't suffer infant mortalities
3 hours after power is applied? Or, at elevated temperatures?

There's a cost associated with each of these guarantees. Do
you know that folks are actually ensuring their products meet
those stated specs? Or, just relying on "process history"
as a shortcut for testing?

One of my early jobs we had our own shake-n-bake in-house (along
with wave, paint booth, machine shop, etc.). Products *didn't*
come back once they were sold. It was important to us (costly
to handle warranty repairs) and our customers.

Of course, the cost of those facilities -- and the folks to
operate them -- was baked into the price of the product.
There is no free lunch.

> Where I worked there are thousands of flouresent tubes for light. They
> buy name brand tubes. One day me and another were replacing some and
> out of about 10 boxes one box of about 15 or 20 tubes had about half of
> them bad.

Obviously, any guarantee you received was just backed with something
along the lines of "free replacement". What if you can't deploy a
replacement because the item is orbiting Saturn? Or, it has already
resulted in a death/injury/loss/etc.?

If you're a garage shop -- or, People's Fluorescent Lighting
Manufacturer #1445 -- you can close your door and open up again,
across the street. There's no reputation at stake; the folks
buying from you are often buying based on price and little else.

If you are bigger -- or, hope for a persistence in a market -- then
you place more emphasis on the veracity of your claims. And, some
of your customers will rely on (or even VERIFY) that!

On 8/5/2021 8:00 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <segs17$mrr$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
> says...
>>
>> Remember, juries aren't always rational. The guy who
>> has suffered some significant loss (injury) can command
>> more sympathy than the impersonal corporation "intent on
>> profit"! Even if the injured party was a frigging idiot!
>
> Right. At work we were always having talks about safety. On was where
> some idiot was using a ladder. It had all kinds of warning stickers on
> it.

Most ladders warn you not to use the top two steps. THEN WHY ARE THEY
THERE???

> The idiot put the ladder up with one leg in a frozen cow pile. The sun
> came out and warmed the cow pile up enough the ladder slipped and the
> idiot fell. Sued and the jury awarded him some money. Guess the ladder
> compay forgot the do not put ladder leg in frozen cow shit sticker.

Exactly. And, its relatively easy to convince a jury (likely
comprised of equally "idiotic" people) that they could envision
themselves doing something similar.

"Why *can't* I set the ladder on cow shit? What *else* can't I do
with it? Why didn't you tell me this ladder was so damn USELESS???"

On Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:10:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

[snip]

>parts.
>
>If you're unable to find a replacement roller, try high temperature
>silicon tubing over a 6mm steel rod.
><https://www.amazon.com/s?k=silicon+tubing+8mm+id>

That's 8mm ID. One can get a 6mm ID soft tube to slide over a 6mm OD
metal rod using compressed air to inflate the tubing.

I've done this to make a cable from vinyl tubing and insulated
stranded copper wire.

Joe Gwinn

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 08:22:16 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

>On 8/5/2021 8:00 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> In article <segs17$mrr$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
>> says...
>>>
>>> Remember, juries aren't always rational. The guy who
>>> has suffered some significant loss (injury) can command
>>> more sympathy than the impersonal corporation "intent on
>>> profit"! Even if the injured party was a frigging idiot!
>>
>> Right. At work we were always having talks about safety. On was where
>> some idiot was using a ladder. It had all kinds of warning stickers on
>> it.
>
>Most ladders warn you not to use the top two steps. THEN WHY ARE THEY
>THERE???

To grab onto, for stability. To rest against the building. To hang a
paint can from. To tie the ladder to the building. Etc.

>> The idiot put the ladder up with one leg in a frozen cow pile. The sun
>> came out and warmed the cow pile up enough the ladder slipped and the
>> idiot fell. Sued and the jury awarded him some money. Guess the ladder
>> compay forgot the do not put ladder leg in frozen cow shit sticker.
>
>Exactly. And, its relatively easy to convince a jury (likely
>comprised of equally "idiotic" people) that they could envision
>themselves doing something similar.
>
>"Why *can't* I set the ladder on cow shit? What *else* can't I do
>with it? Why didn't you tell me this ladder was so damn USELESS???"

Darwin awaits. I hear that there are awards for creativity.

In the late 1980s, I bought a new six-foot wood stepladder made by
Lynn Ladder, a very reputable brand, in the Boston area. It was
covered with various safety stickers that listed all manner of stupid
ways to kill oneself.

A friend was visiting from Sweden, and upon seeing all those stickers,
he asked if he could have them (I was going to remove them all),
because "nobody will believe him back in Sweden" otherwise. I agreed.

Still have that ladder. Hope they had a good laugh.

Joe Gwinn

On 8/5/2021 12:38 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 08:22:16 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/5/2021 8:00 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>> In article <segs17$mrr$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> Remember, juries aren't always rational. The guy who
>>>> has suffered some significant loss (injury) can command
>>>> more sympathy than the impersonal corporation "intent on
>>>> profit"! Even if the injured party was a frigging idiot!
>>>
>>> Right. At work we were always having talks about safety. On was where
>>> some idiot was using a ladder. It had all kinds of warning stickers on
>>> it.
>>
>> Most ladders warn you not to use the top two steps. THEN WHY ARE THEY
>> THERE???
>
> To grab onto, for stability. To rest against the building. To hang a
> paint can from. To tie the ladder to the building. Etc.

It doesn't need to be a STEP to serve any of those purposes! At the very
least, changing the construction/appearance should act to prod the user's
thinking: "Hmmm... can't step on *that*..."

>>> The idiot put the ladder up with one leg in a frozen cow pile. The sun
>>> came out and warmed the cow pile up enough the ladder slipped and the
>>> idiot fell. Sued and the jury awarded him some money. Guess the ladder
>>> compay forgot the do not put ladder leg in frozen cow shit sticker.
>>
>> Exactly. And, its relatively easy to convince a jury (likely
>> comprised of equally "idiotic" people) that they could envision
>> themselves doing something similar.
>>
>> "Why *can't* I set the ladder on cow shit? What *else* can't I do
>> with it? Why didn't you tell me this ladder was so damn USELESS???"
>
> Darwin awaits. I hear that there are awards for creativity.
>
> In the late 1980s, I bought a new six-foot wood stepladder made by
> Lynn Ladder, a very reputable brand, in the Boston area. It was
> covered with various safety stickers that listed all manner of stupid
> ways to kill oneself.

Look in any product documentation -- there are dozens of "warnings"
about all sorts of (fairly obvious, to anyone who THINKS about it)
things that you shouldn't do.

By comparison, "Don't run with scissors" looks pretty lame...

> A friend was visiting from Sweden, and upon seeing all those stickers,
> he asked if he could have them (I was going to remove them all),
> because "nobody will believe him back in Sweden" otherwise. I agreed.

A testament to the legal system, here. Ignore it (as a manufacturer)
at your own peril!

> Still have that ladder. Hope they had a good laugh.

I worked in the engineering office at a hand tool manufacturer.
The stories of how our tools were misused were so outrageous
that you simply couldn't make them up! So, you had to
modify the designs, where possible, to make it harder for people
to do stupid things (or, be harmed out of ignorance of the
POTENTIAL for injury).

Yet, things like pumping fuel are allowed with just a warning
notice to shut off engine, no smoking, etc. "Really? Ya think?"

OTOH, the prohibition of dispensing fuel into unapproved containers
is probably warranted. Folks don't always understand that certain
things can act as solvents... (why is the container I used to
store gasoline all "melty" and the ground covered with a puddle
of gas?)

On 2021-08-05, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

> Most ladders warn you not to use the top two steps. THEN WHY ARE THEY
> THERE???

They are there for when they are not the top two steps.

--
Jasen.

On Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:22:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:10:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>parts.
>>
>>If you're unable to find a replacement roller, try high temperature
>>silicon tubing over a 6mm steel rod.
>><https://www.amazon.com/s?k=silicon+tubing+8mm+id>
>
>That's 8mm ID. One can get a 6mm ID soft tube to slide over a 6mm OD
>metal rod using compressed air to inflate the tubing.

Sorry. This should work better:
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=silicon+tubing+6mm+id>

>I've done this to make a cable from vinyl tubing and insulated
>stranded copper wire.

Nice. I also use vinyl tubing for replacing rubber feed rollers.
Here's one from the HP 65 calculator card reader:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/calculators/hp65/Hp65-Drive-Roller.jpg>
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/calculators/hp65/index.html>

Just for fun, here are some other material problems with various HP
products:

"HP LaserJet 2200 Duplex Paper Jam Repair"
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/hp2200/hp2200.html>
This is where the rubber pad between the relay armature and the
solenoid core disintegrates, becomes sticky, wrecks the timing, and
causes paper jams. Same for the 4200 series:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/hp4200/hp4200.html>
The problem started with the very first Canon bases laser printers
(Apple Laserwriter 1985) and persisted through about 2004. Despite my
rants on the topic in various forums, HP never acknowledged that there
was a problem. HP shipped 75 million printers during that time
period, many of which ended up being recycled because of chronic paper
jams.

In test equipment, HP seems to have invented a shrinking plastic
formulation, which was found in the HP 8640B signal generator:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/HP8640B/index.html>
With care, it was possible to enlarge the center hold in the plastic
gear, and epoxy glue the gear back together. 3D printed gears have
been available but tend strip teeth and crack. Machined brass gears
from India are much better:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/154054911606>

Bottom lines: Yes, you may need to make your own parts in order to
fix HP hardware.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 8/5/2021 1:05 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2021-08-05, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Most ladders warn you not to use the top two steps. THEN WHY ARE THEY
>> THERE???
>
> They are there for when they are not the top two steps.

This step intentionally left blank.

This step intentionally left blank.

On 05/08/2021 16:22, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/5/2021 8:00 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> In article <segs17$mrr$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
>> says...
>>>
>>> Remember, juries aren't always rational.  The guy who
>>> has suffered some significant loss (injury) can command
>>> more sympathy than the impersonal corporation "intent on
>>> profit"!  Even if the injured party was a frigging idiot!
>>
>> Right.  At work we were always having talks about safety.  On was where
>> some idiot was using a ladder.  It had all kinds of warning stickers on
>> it.
>
> Most ladders warn you not to use the top two steps.   THEN WHY ARE THEY
> THERE???
>
>> The idiot put the ladder up with one leg in a frozen cow pile.  The sun
>> came out and warmed the cow pile up enough the ladder slipped and the
>> idiot fell.  Sued and the jury awarded him some money. Guess the ladder
>> compay forgot the do not put ladder leg in frozen cow shit sticker.
>
> Exactly.  And, its relatively easy to convince a jury (likely
> comprised of equally "idiotic" people) that they could envision
> themselves doing something similar.
>
> "Why *can't* I set the ladder on cow shit?  What *else* can't I do
> with it?  Why didn't you tell me this ladder was so damn USELESS???"

It is the sort of legalistic no win no fee game that forces people in
the USA to have "open other end" stamped on the base of glass bottles.

In the UK we still have the concept that if someone does something
terminally stupid with equipment then that is their problem. Though
increasingly we are getting product warning to not do insane things!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 8/6/2021 2:15 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 05/08/2021 16:22, Don Y wrote:

>> Exactly. And, its relatively easy to convince a jury (likely
>> comprised of equally "idiotic" people) that they could envision
>> themselves doing something similar.
>>
>> "Why *can't* I set the ladder on cow shit? What *else* can't I do
>> with it? Why didn't you tell me this ladder was so damn USELESS???"
>
> It is the sort of legalistic no win no fee game that forces people in the USA
> to have "open other end" stamped on the base of glass bottles.
>
> In the UK we still have the concept that if someone does something terminally
> stupid with equipment then that is their problem. Though increasingly we are
> getting product warning to not do insane things!

Who decides what is "terminally stupid"? Or, even marginally stupid?

How much do you know about the strength of your hand tools? Do you know *if*
you can use a particular screwdriver as a prying tool? Or, the point at which
it will fail? If the failure will be deformation vs. an abrupt "snap"?

You might reason that a #0 Philips point is less strong than a #1 point.
Which would likely be less strong than a #2 point. But, how *much* less?
I.e., a #0 point will easily fit a #2 screw head so shouldn't it be
"compatible" with the torque requirements of such a larger screw?
Ditto slotted blades. Why can't I use a fine, cabinet tip screwdriver
to loosen a hefty fastener?

Tin snips are two opposing "blades" on a hinged mount. Why can't I *drive*
a single blade through the "tin" with similar results? Isn't this WOOD CHISEL
a blade, of sorts? It sure is *sharp*...

It's this sort of mentality that leads folks to think that a Harbor Freight
tool is equivalent to some other "name branded" tool: "They LOOK the same!"

And, there's no special instruction mandated for common folks to THINK they
can use a tool -- they all seem intuitive! (watch to see how various folks
use a common staple remover)

Because one can purchase damn near anything, here, folks think that there
is nothing special about *using* those things. I cringe each time I see
someone using a chainsaw one-handed. Or, holding it over their head.
Or, from a ladder.

Finally, for folks who aren't accustomed to using tools, it's quite
possible to become over-tired and, consequently, "sloppy" with safety.
It only takes a second for you to do something (that you might KNOW
is unsafe!) that results in injury.

Do you *religiously* wear safety glasses when doing ANYTHING that could
result in debris, solvents, etc. being directed to your eyes? Do you
anticipate the many ways that something can fly in their direction, despite
your *intentions*?

[I was rebuilding a carburetor a few weeks ago. The "carb cleaner" comes with
a fine diameter tube to direct the solvent onto/into very specific areas.
Ah, but if you release the solvent and the end of the tube is obstructed by
a flat surface, that fine stream will "bounce" -- right back at you! Ooops!]

Flour (for baking) comes with a warning to not eat it *raw*! (WTF? Who would
find the taste of raw flour appealing??). Is there a risk that someone will
die or suffer serious injury from doing so? (I'm *asking* as I don't know)
Or, is the manufacturer just offering some good advice?

OTOH, eggs *don't* come with a warning telling you not to eat them *raw*.
(indeed, I use them raw in ice cream as well as some cake frostings).

Meat comes with warnings as to target internal temperature for "fully cooked".

If you're getting started in your first place and feel ambitious and
want to give everything a good cleaning, you may resort to trying
several different cleaning agents. Like bleach... and maybe some
ammonia, later. Or vinegar. Or, "windex". Or, toilet bowl cleaner
(if your goal was to clean those persistent stains the previous tenant
left in the toilet).

"Huh??"

These things all have the fact that folks *think* they are straightforward
to use/consume when, in fact, they aren't. Unfortunately, even printing the
disclaimers/warnings on the label is futile as most folks don't *read*
the labels ("It's just bleach. I know how to use it...")

fredag den 6. august 2021 kl. 11.51.34 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
> On 8/6/2021 2:15 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> > On 05/08/2021 16:22, Don Y wrote:
>
> >> Exactly. And, its relatively easy to convince a jury (likely
> >> comprised of equally "idiotic" people) that they could envision
> >> themselves doing something similar.
> >>
> >> "Why *can't* I set the ladder on cow shit? What *else* can't I do
> >> with it? Why didn't you tell me this ladder was so damn USELESS???"
> >
> > It is the sort of legalistic no win no fee game that forces people in the USA
> > to have "open other end" stamped on the base of glass bottles.
> >
> > In the UK we still have the concept that if someone does something terminally
> > stupid with equipment then that is their problem. Though increasingly we are
> > getting product warning to not do insane things!
> Who decides what is "terminally stupid"? Or, even marginally stupid?
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_pater_familias

> Flour (for baking) comes with a warning to not eat it *raw*! (WTF? Who would
> find the taste of raw flour appealing??). Is there a risk that someone will
> die or suffer serious injury from doing so? (I'm *asking* as I don't know)

flour potentially contain germs like E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria

On 8/6/2021 3:22 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> fredag den 6. august 2021 kl. 11.51.34 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
>> On 8/6/2021 2:15 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2021 16:22, Don Y wrote:
>>
>>>> Exactly. And, its relatively easy to convince a jury (likely
>>>> comprised of equally "idiotic" people) that they could envision
>>>> themselves doing something similar.
>>>>
>>>> "Why *can't* I set the ladder on cow shit? What *else* can't I do
>>>> with it? Why didn't you tell me this ladder was so damn USELESS???"
>>>
>>> It is the sort of legalistic no win no fee game that forces people in the USA
>>> to have "open other end" stamped on the base of glass bottles.
>>>
>>> In the UK we still have the concept that if someone does something terminally
>>> stupid with equipment then that is their problem. Though increasingly we are
>>> getting product warning to not do insane things!
>> Who decides what is "terminally stupid"? Or, even marginally stupid?
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_pater_familias

That's what "juries of peers" determine. If the folks sitting in judgement
of your claim think it's not unreasonable for you to have done something
(stupid), then the manufacturer of the item bears responsibility for
not having made it CLEAR that something is "stupid" (dangerous).

Because of our topology, soil type and "municipal priorities", it is
fairly common for running water to overflow or cross roads *as if*
they were stream beds (in some place, roads travel down *into* dry
washes instead of spending money to build a LONG bridge to span the
depression).

The flowing water is rarely very deep. But, often swiftly moving.

It is not uncommon for folks to think they can just drive across...
slowly. After all, the water is shallow, the body of the car is elevated
and the car has significant weight!

They soon discover that the water has no problem moving their car
"downstream", while occupied. And, of course, they can't exit the
vehicle into that swiftly running water (if the water was able to
move the *car*, think what it would do to a person!)

This happens so often that we have a law on the books that fines
folks who need "rescue" from these situations: Stupid Motorist Law.

*Despite* this (and the routine publicity it garners), we have cases
of people needing rescue each time it rains, significantly. This
despite the publicity, the posting of "road closed" signs before each
such flooded area", the publicized fines, etc.

There's just something inherently counterintuitive about that little bit of
water being able to toss that large a mass aside! (and, the alternative
is to drive *around* the affected area which, heaven forbid, might
cost you 10 minutes!)

The "average person" is really a fair bit BELOW average! :-/

>> Flour (for baking) comes with a warning to not eat it *raw*! (WTF? Who would
>> find the taste of raw flour appealing??). Is there a risk that someone will
>> die or suffer serious injury from doing so? (I'm *asking* as I don't know)
>
> flour potentially contain germs like E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria
>

On Thu, 05 Aug 2021 13:31:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:22:55 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:10:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>parts.
>>>
>>>If you're unable to find a replacement roller, try high temperature
>>>silicon tubing over a 6mm steel rod.
>>><https://www.amazon.com/s?k=silicon+tubing+8mm+id>
>>
>>That's 8mm ID. One can get a 6mm ID soft tube to slide over a 6mm OD
>>metal rod using compressed air to inflate the tubing.
>
>Sorry. This should work better:
><https://www.amazon.com/s?k=silicon+tubing+6mm+id>
>
>>I've done this to make a cable from vinyl tubing and insulated
>>stranded copper wire.
>
>Nice. I also use vinyl tubing for replacing rubber feed rollers.
>Here's one from the HP 65 calculator card reader:
><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/calculators/hp65/Hp65-Drive-Roller.jpg>
><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/calculators/hp65/index.html>
>
>Just for fun, here are some other material problems with various HP
>products:
>
>"HP LaserJet 2200 Duplex Paper Jam Repair"
><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/hp2200/hp2200.html>
>This is where the rubber pad between the relay armature and the
>solenoid core disintegrates, becomes sticky, wrecks the timing, and
>causes paper jams. Same for the 4200 series:
><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/hp4200/hp4200.html>
>The problem started with the very first Canon bases laser printers
>(Apple Laserwriter 1985) and persisted through about 2004. Despite my
>rants on the topic in various forums, HP never acknowledged that there
>was a problem. HP shipped 75 million printers during that time
>period, many of which ended up being recycled because of chronic paper
>jams.

I fixed a similar problem with a Brother MFC-9840CDW printer, but it
didn't require as much disassembly to access. I don't recall the
details yet.

>In test equipment, HP seems to have invented a shrinking plastic
>formulation, which was found in the HP 8640B signal generator:
><http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/HP8640B/index.html>

The brass hub was likely pressed into the plastic gear, which then had
to had le static hoop stress. Are the gears made of nylon, or delrin?
Delrin is claimed to be suitable for press fits, but not nylon.

>With care, it was possible to enlarge the center hold in the plastic
>gear, and epoxy glue the gear back together. 3D printed gears have
>been available but tend strip teeth and crack. Machined brass gears
>from India are much better:
><https://www.ebay.com/itm/154054911606>
>
>Bottom lines: Yes, you may need to make your own parts in order to
>fix HP hardware.

Yeah. I used to always buy HP printers, but the eventually beat me
out of the habit. I do have an LaserJet5pm that I bought new, and
still works. I did have to max the memory out, though. It's cheap
now days.

Joe Gwinn

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 11:52:57 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
>
> Everyone *says* you can keep your apps and "just upgrade". That may
> be true if you have *few* apps and they are "mainstream". I've been
> bitten too many times, in the past, and now adopt the "if it ain't
> broke" approach to the OS...

I run several programs from 2020 or earlier. One is Codewright which has a few compatibility issues which I've managed to work with. Another is Eudora which seems to just keep on plugging with no real compatibility issues, just the same bugs it had 20 years ago.

Trying to use a laptop (inherently fragile) which is replaced every few years by necessity, and running old OS would be much harder than running old apps under the current Windows. I like Win10. I think it is the best Windows yet. I get stuff done and it doesn't hurt too much.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
> >
> This is where legislators have to get people with tech know-how
> involved, for once. Example:
>
> I lost two Dell PCs in short order and one of them was a pricey i7-based
> power machine. Motherboard failure. Well, with the i7 it could also be a
> CPU failure but because no schematics are published it's not possible to
> tell. Short of shelling out lots of money to try a new CPU and possibly
> discovering that this was a waste of money.

Really? You are going to debug a 1100 pin CPU??? Ok...

> So, if PC manufacturers just published the schematics many computers
> could be kept out of landfills. Motherboards usually become unobtainable
> as spare parts after a short number of years and besides, throwing away
> a whole motherboard just because a little IC or a diode on there has
> failed doesn't make ecological sense.

There is also a need for someone who can repair such devices economically. With many devices costing only a few hundred dollars it doesn't make much sense to make it repairable when the shop will charge $200 or more.

> I would not expect any company to divulge trade secrets such as the
> contents of an FPGA. However, I do expect release of schematics like was
> standard practice in the 60's and 70's where, consequently, I was able
> to repair a lot of TV sets as a kid. There is no secret in schematics
> since any competitor could easily reverse engineer boards to derive the
> schematics.

If there was actually a market for schematics someone would start reverse engineering popular devices and selling them. It's not a copyright violation to reverse engineer such devices.

FPGA firmware and CPU software are another matter. Companies make many repair actions a crime by enforcing copyright on things that have any such code. You might think that if you own a board with such code you could buy an unprogrammed board and copy the copyrighted materials, but no, you don't have that right. That is one of the issues the Right to Repair organization is addressing and has won support in Congress for.

> Easy. Make that reportable and when it festers some goons would be sent
> out to that company for a little audit.
>
> It has to be reasonable though. For example, an ASIC with 100 pins or
> more or a BGA may not be considered serviceable by ordinary repair
> personnel. This is all more about common sense stuff. Such as when the
> switch of a old vaccum fries. That happened to us earlier this year.
> Could not get the spare, had to buy a whole new vacuum.
>
> I think this is one of the few laws that makes sense if implemented
> reasonably and without undue burned on manufacturers. Such as "Identify
> the five most common easy to fix failures on your product and make those
> parts available at reasonable cost". Switches, motor brushes, cables,
> gaskets, that sort of thing. For electronics it's schematics, parts can
> generally be bought at Digikey. I don't want a spare for a huge FPGA to
> be avaliable for three decades, I just want to be able to have a "map"
> that allows me to find that D17 is bad.

Sure, but very, very few would benefit much from such laws because so few can effect a repair even with that info.

Good luck.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 8/4/21 3:15 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/4/2021 12:30 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 8/3/21 12:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> Lots of smoke, but likely little heat.
>>>
>>> Yet, got me thinking about what sort of form legislation *might* take.
>>>
>>> Obviously, you can't force manufacturers to disclose their IP.
>>> Yet, you need to make *some* information available to The Public,
>>> if you are going to support their "Right to Repair".
>>>
>>> If the edict requires you to make public everything that you
>>> make available to your "authorized service partners", that
>>> could still far short of PRACTICAL "DIY fixit".  E.g., if
>>> you require your partners to purchase special test fixtures
>>> (from you), then you could require others (DIY) to purchase
>>> those fixtures in order to make sense of your published
>>> repair procedures.
>>>
>>> If your service partners are limited to board level swap,
>>> then DIYers would similarly be constrained; no need for
>>> your partners to have detailed information about a board's
>>> design -- just enough to do black box testing.  (So,
>>> even if an LDO failure at U36 is a common cause for board
>>> replacement, there's no need to expose that level of detail
>>> to your partners or DIYers:  "We don't sell replacement
>>> *components*, just subassemblies")
>>>
>>
>> This is where legislators have to get people with tech know-how
>> involved, for once. Example:
>
> They will.  Th elobbiests for the various companies (tech and otherwise)
> that are affected.  The voice of the "user" will be lost in all that.
>
> And, the wording of any law will superficially appear to achieve its
> goal -- by using mealy-mouthed words that have no HARD meaning.
> Like "fair/reasonable price".
>

Yeah, probably. They are just going to try to make it go away. Somehow.

>> I lost two Dell PCs in short order and one of them was a pricey
>> i7-based power machine. Motherboard failure. Well, with the i7 it
>> could also be a CPU failure but because no schematics are published
>> it's not possible to tell. Short of shelling out lots of money to try
>> a new CPU and possibly discovering that this was a waste of money.
>>
>> So, if PC manufacturers just published the schematics many computers
>> could be kept out of landfills.
>
> If the goal is to keep things out of landfills, you can do that just
> by subsidizing their recovery.

Which recovery? The boards? They will never be fully recyclable.

> ... If this is done universally, it
> doesn't affect a particular manufacturer so he's less inclined
> to do anything about it.
>
> Places with deposits on bottles tend to see far more bottles kept
> out of the trash!  By contrast, glass was just *removed* from our
> curbside recycling program.  Instead, you have to wash the bottle,
> store it on your premises (until you have accumulated "enough" of
> them) and then drive to an authorized "glass recycling" point and
> place your bottles -- one at a time -- through a small hole (!)
> into a very large rolloff!  Wanna guess the effect that has on
> the amount of recycled glass?  (recall, previously, there was NO
> deposit... but, recycling was relatively easy as it "came to you")
>

That stuff was always a tax in disguise. Very easily recognizable by the
fact that you always got less money back than the enviro-tax paid per
container. Or next to none.

>> Motherboards usually become unobtainable as spare parts after a short
>> number of years and besides, throwing away a whole motherboard just
>> because a little IC or a diode on there has failed doesn't make
>> ecological sense.
>
> Does it make sense if it requires an hour or more of labor to repair?
>

If I have schematics the diagnosis and repair of a failed buck converter
and such does not take an hour. Even if it did, if this saves a $1k
power machine it's definitely worth it.

> I had to replace the power inlet for a friend's laptop.  No need for
> schematics as it's easy to find and "infer" it's role in the design.
> It took several hours to dissemble everything (cuz I wanted it to
> go back together with no evidence of having been taken apart),
> unsolder the old connector, install the new, then reassemble and
> test.
>

Laptops are tough, almost never economically repairable. Although I have
repaired the CCFL inverter in my wife's laptop once and that gave it
another couple years. Then the backlight tubes gave out. And here I have
to say, that Dell Inspiron laptop was very easy to open and button up
again even.

> Should there also be a mandate to design *FOR* repairability?  No
> use of adhesives, snap together assemblies, special tools/fasteners,
> etc.?  And, should it be *easily* repairable?  (who defines easy?)
>

No, just no blatant thwarting of repair attempts. _And_ schematics,
that's key.

> I used to enjoy working on the old 68K Mac's; at most, a single screw
> and the whole thing was apart.  Old Suns had a bit more screws, but
> also came apart pretty easily.
>
> Every medical instrument, process control system, high end peripheral,
> etc. that I've designed could (relatively) easily be maintained.
> But, consumer devices?  Nope.  I want them to go together quickly
> and cheaply.  Repair isn't an issue in the design.  There's no
> premium that a consumer will pay for HIS ability to repair the device
> so why add a cost to do so?
>

There is that premium, as outlined below in my example of the Braun
mixer. Many more, inlcuing big ticket items such as cars. To me
repairability is a key parameter when making a purchase decision. Which
is, for example, why both our cars have the minimum amount of electronic
in them and are older models. We could afford to buy newer models but we
won't do that.

>> And no, this will not harm their sales, on the contrary. After these
>> experiences I switched brands and replaced these computers with HP. If
>> Dell had published schematics I could have repaired and then would
>> have bought the next PC at Dell again.
>
> Do you really think someone who bought a XYZ laptop is thinking
> "I'll NOT buy another XYZ!  My next will be an ABC!!"  And, that
> there's not someone else thinking "I'll NOT buy another ABC!  My
> next will be an XYZ!"
>

Yes, I do, and I know. Thing is, this sort of aversion then festers by
crossing over to friends and family asking for advice.

> I have my pick of basically anything I want -- for the same low $0 price.
> Do you think I selected machines that were known to be easy to repair?
> Or, small and sexy?  Or, "red"?
>
> If my concern was with repairability, I would settle for BEIGE BOXES.
> Generic PC cases with generic CPU boards and generic power supplies
> and generic drive mounts and...
>
> So, clearly you have not based your purchase decisions on that, either.
> Despite your bad experience!
>

Huh? Sure I have. I purposely bought desktops, to a large extent because
everything in there is accessible. Except this time I made sure standard
boards fit inside. With the large Dell I had the problem that only their
board fit and it had become unobtanium.

>> Here is an example of the opposite: The 50's era large Braun kitchen
>> mixer from my mom gave up. They furnished a complete service manual
>> for it. I had to go to Cologne for another reason so figured I'd try
>> to ask for the spare parts at the factory service place, fully
>> expecting they'd shoo me away. On the contrary, the employee went back
>> to a large area with bins, handed me the parts and wanted 1
>> Deutschmark and 55 Pfennigs. Huh? "Sir, this must be a misprint, that
>> is way too low" ... "No, this was the original price when we still
>> built these and we honor that". I told him they had just won a new
>> loyal customer and after our marriage we bought several kitchen
>> devices from Braun.
>
> And we have a 50+ year old freezer chest.  Try buying a replacement
> *basket* for it.  Instead, you'll get an exclamation as to "it's STILL
> running?!"
>

Classic example: A tech at my last employer asked around if someone can
drive him to the autoparts store. "I can". On the way I asked him what
he needed. "Oh, this here starter for my Chevy pickup. That was a 50's
model. "You are sure they have it? Did you call and order it ahead?" ...
"No need to, they always have these and when you bring the old one you
get a little discount".

On 8/4/21 4:17 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/4/2021 3:59 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> That is unusual.  I can understand the price of the parts going up.
>> What pisses me is that as an ordnary person I can not go to some parts
>> places and ask for a part.  They only sell to certified repair man or
>> companies.
>
> If you plan ahead, you can usually get around this.  E.g., I
> routinely purchase electrical supplies from places that only
> "sell to the trade".  No, I'm not a licensed electrician.
> No, I don't WORK for one.
>
> But, dropping names and "attitude" can go a long way.  The counter
> person (treated with respect) isn't typically out to bust your
> balls.  Just don't rub his face in it.  Don't *act* like a newbie.
>

I found out that the possession of a white coat was very important :-)

They generally thought I was an apprentice at a TV repair shop and the
boss had sent me to pick up some parts. In reality I was just a teenager
repairing TV sets on my own.

Of course, this only worked at places where a business account wasn't
too strictly required because the tax autority would not have issued me
the equivalent of a VAT number.

Later I found that if you said you don't need part xyz for repair but
for engineering experiments it often made it sail through as well.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

In article <ecddebe0-ca47-4aef-9124-d32627245bbdn@googlegroups.com>,
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com says...
>
> If there was actually a market for schematics someone would start reverse engineering popular devices and selling them. It's not a copyright violation to reverse engineer such devices.
>
>
>

For over 50 years there was a company that did market schematics for
much of the electronic gear. Sam's Photofacts. In the late 1960's and
early 70's I bought a lot of them to service the CB radios.

The radios were in the $ 150 and mostly $ 250 and up price range. That
was when many in the area were making about $ 2.50 $ 4.00 an hour. So
they would pay $ 20 to $ 50 to get the sets repaired. I did it as
partly a learning and hobby, not my regular job. Then the radios
started selling for $ 50 to $ 150 so not much need to repair them, and
then many people quit using them.

Now with labor and parts and buildings for a shop being what they are to
make any money one has to be charging from $ 50 to $ 100 an hour to come
out.

For a while many items were made with common parts that were easy to
replace, now just about every electronic device has a few IC chips in
them and they are not easy to come by or replace.

On 8/6/21 10:24 AM, Rick C wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>> This is where legislators have to get people with tech know-how
>> involved, for once. Example:
>>
>> I lost two Dell PCs in short order and one of them was a pricey
>> i7-based power machine. Motherboard failure. Well, with the i7 it
>> could also be a CPU failure but because no schematics are published
>> it's not possible to tell. Short of shelling out lots of money to
>> try a new CPU and possibly discovering that this was a waste of
>> money.
>
> Really? You are going to debug a 1100 pin CPU??? Ok...
>

No. Finding out via the schematic which pin connects to a switcher
circuitry to enable a start is all that's needed. Without a schematic
you can only try whether a CPU swap makes it work again.

>
>> So, if PC manufacturers just published the schematics many
>> computers could be kept out of landfills. Motherboards usually
>> become unobtainable as spare parts after a short number of years
>> and besides, throwing away a whole motherboard just because a
>> little IC or a diode on there has failed doesn't make ecological
>> sense.
>
> There is also a need for someone who can repair such devices
> economically. With many devices costing only a few hundred dollars
> it doesn't make much sense to make it repairable when the shop will
> charge $200 or more.
>

If a device costs $1k and a schematic eanbles you (or a shop) to repair
it in under 30mins it does make sense.

We also need to think about ecological consequences. Example: Bought a
clock radio for aruond $10. Came home, plugged in, several segmetns in
the LED display were dead. Hurumph! Opened it up, spent about 20mins
repairing some cold solder joints, done. It still works after more than
20 years. The alternative would have been this:

Driving to the store, 30mins. Standing in line for the return, 5mins.
Drive back home, 30mins. What is better, 65mins or 20mins? Oh, and then
there is the matter of a gallon of gasoline that I avoided burning.
Besides, this radio would have landed in the trash and I do not like to
unneccesarily pollute our environment or that of others. We all have to
do our part.

>
>> I would not expect any company to divulge trade secrets such as
>> the contents of an FPGA. However, I do expect release of schematics
>> like was standard practice in the 60's and 70's where,
>> consequently, I was able to repair a lot of TV sets as a kid. There
>> is no secret in schematics since any competitor could easily
>> reverse engineer boards to derive the schematics.
>
> If there was actually a market for schematics someone would start
> reverse engineering popular devices and selling them. It's not a
> copyright violation to reverse engineer such devices.
>

Why is it that _all_ my ham rdaio gear came with schematics and service
manuals?

Same with radio and TV set up into the 70's. My wife's big cassic Saba
8100 stereo from the 70's developed an issue. Thanks to the availabilty
of a full serice manual with schematics I was able to quickly diagnose
and repair it. FM reception was restored and we still use it every day
in the living room.

> FPGA firmware and CPU software are another matter. Companies make
> many repair actions a crime by enforcing copyright on things that
> have any such code. You might think that if you own a board with
> such code you could buy an unprogrammed board and copy the
> copyrighted materials, but no, you don't have that right. That is
> one of the issues the Right to Repair organization is addressing and
> has won support in Congress for.
>

Well, let's hope. WRT computers I have left that era behind me when
Windows 7 was called off. They are all on Linux now.

>
>> Easy. Make that reportable and when it festers some goons would be
>> sent out to that company for a little audit.
>>
>> It has to be reasonable though. For example, an ASIC with 100 pins
>> or more or a BGA may not be considered serviceable by ordinary
>> repair personnel. This is all more about common sense stuff. Such
>> as when the switch of a old vaccum fries. That happened to us
>> earlier this year. Could not get the spare, had to buy a whole new
>> vacuum.
>>
>> I think this is one of the few laws that makes sense if
>> implemented reasonably and without undue burned on manufacturers.
>> Such as "Identify the five most common easy to fix failures on your
>> product and make those parts available at reasonable cost".
>> Switches, motor brushes, cables, gaskets, that sort of thing. For
>> electronics it's schematics, parts can generally be bought at
>> Digikey. I don't want a spare for a huge FPGA to be avaliable for
>> three decades, I just want to be able to have a "map" that allows
>> me to find that D17 is bad.
>
> Sure, but very, very few would benefit much from such laws because so
> few can effect a repair even with that info.
>

Not really. It would open up chances for new business, the neighborhood
repair guy. You wouldn't believe how many people I met who open and
close their garage doors by hand because the electric opener has gone
bad. "I don't have that kind of money". Often it's just a corroded DIP
switch, relay or the RF transistor has gone bad after a thunderstorm
years ago.

I repaired the (back then painfully expensive) Grundig Satellite allband
radio of my geography teacher. The TV shop had given up but it was easy.
One of the IF coils had no conductivity. Took the can off, copper had
oxydized away. New winding, align it, done. And I was just a school kid.

Without a schematic this would have been much tougher.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

In article <in5eggF3odvU1@mid.individual.net>,
news@analogconsultants.com says...
>
> Classic example: A tech at my last employer asked around if someone can
> drive him to the autoparts store. "I can". On the way I asked him what
> he needed. "Oh, this here starter for my Chevy pickup. That was a 50's
> model. "You are sure they have it? Did you call and order it ahead?" ...
> "No need to, they always have these and when you bring the old one you
> get a little discount".
>
> And he could put it in right in the driveway, fast.
>
>
>

The older cars were always needing something. Oil changes, plugs,
points, valve adjustments, starters.

Now about all that is done for many cars is an oil change and tire
rotation or tires. Maybe brakes.

I put 200,000 miles on a Toyota and breaks, 2 or 3 changes of the
sparkplugs, oil changes and the timing belt, water pump replaced at that
time as it was behind the internal belt to be safe and a few light bulbs
was all that was needed other than an sensor that quit at 130,000 miles.

In article <in5glgF46bsU1@mid.individual.net>,
news@analogconsultants.com says...
>
> Why is it that _all_ my ham rdaio gear came with schematics and service
> manuals?
>
>
>

Do you have several thousand dollars worth of test equipment to use to
find the problem on the modern sets ? Another few hundred for equipmant
to work on the SMD parts. For the older tube equipment like my Heathkit
setup one can get by with much less expensive test equipment.

I do for my ham radios as it is mainly a hobby for me. Most of the test
equipment is not new, but works well. For example I have a service
monitor that cost about $ 50,000 when new in the 1990's . Bought it for
$ 900 about 10 years ago as it was for the old analog cell phones and
not much use to them now. Not many are going to spend $ 5,000 to $
10,000 for a service monitor test set to repair a $ 1500 radio.

On 8/6/2021 11:48 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 8/4/21 3:15 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/4/2021 12:30 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 8/3/21 12:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> Lots of smoke, but likely little heat.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, got me thinking about what sort of form legislation *might* take.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, you can't force manufacturers to disclose their IP.
>>>> Yet, you need to make *some* information available to The Public,
>>>> if you are going to support their "Right to Repair".
>>>>
>>>> If the edict requires you to make public everything that you
>>>> make available to your "authorized service partners", that
>>>> could still far short of PRACTICAL "DIY fixit". E.g., if
>>>> you require your partners to purchase special test fixtures
>>>> (from you), then you could require others (DIY) to purchase
>>>> those fixtures in order to make sense of your published
>>>> repair procedures.
>>>>
>>>> If your service partners are limited to board level swap,
>>>> then DIYers would similarly be constrained; no need for
>>>> your partners to have detailed information about a board's
>>>> design -- just enough to do black box testing. (So,
>>>> even if an LDO failure at U36 is a common cause for board
>>>> replacement, there's no need to expose that level of detail
>>>> to your partners or DIYers: "We don't sell replacement
>>>> *components*, just subassemblies")
>>>
>>> This is where legislators have to get people with tech know-how involved,
>>> for once. Example:
>>
>> They will. Th elobbiests for the various companies (tech and otherwise)
>> that are affected. The voice of the "user" will be lost in all that.
>>
>> And, the wording of any law will superficially appear to achieve its
>> goal -- by using mealy-mouthed words that have no HARD meaning.
>> Like "fair/reasonable price".
>
> Yeah, probably. They are just going to try to make it go away. Somehow.

They will likely settle on "whatever you make available to your
authorized repair centers". It's silly to think "everyday joes"
should have access to MORE information than the people that are
INTENDED to repair the kit.

And, this requires less work of the manufacturer: just make what
you already support available to all -- at the same prices.
One can argue that a "partner" can get the benefit of quantity
discounts as there is a fixed cost to process *an* order so
folks buying more can spread that cost out over a larger number
of units.

>>> I lost two Dell PCs in short order and one of them was a pricey i7-based
>>> power machine. Motherboard failure. Well, with the i7 it could also be a CPU
>>> failure but because no schematics are published it's not possible to tell.
>>> Short of shelling out lots of money to try a new CPU and possibly
>>> discovering that this was a waste of money.
>>>
>>> So, if PC manufacturers just published the schematics many computers could
>>> be kept out of landfills.
>>
>> If the goal is to keep things out of landfills, you can do that just
>> by subsidizing their recovery.
>
> Which recovery? The boards? They will never be fully recyclable.

We have firms that buy boards just to lift the gold plate.
If some FR4 gets discarded... <shrug>

>> ... If this is done universally, it
>> doesn't affect a particular manufacturer so he's less inclined
>> to do anything about it.
>>
>> Places with deposits on bottles tend to see far more bottles kept
>> out of the trash! By contrast, glass was just *removed* from our
>> curbside recycling program. Instead, you have to wash the bottle,
>> store it on your premises (until you have accumulated "enough" of
>> them) and then drive to an authorized "glass recycling" point and
>> place your bottles -- one at a time -- through a small hole (!)
>> into a very large rolloff! Wanna guess the effect that has on
>> the amount of recycled glass? (recall, previously, there was NO
>> deposit... but, recycling was relatively easy as it "came to you")
>
> That stuff was always a tax in disguise. Very easily recognizable by the fact
> that you always got less money back than the enviro-tax paid per container. Or
> next to none.

You get your deposit back when you return the item. Do you get your
sales tax, income tax, property tax, etc. back -- ever?

>>> Motherboards usually become unobtainable as spare parts after a short number
>>> of years and besides, throwing away a whole motherboard just because a
>>> little IC or a diode on there has failed doesn't make ecological sense.
>>
>> Does it make sense if it requires an hour or more of labor to repair?
>
> If I have schematics the diagnosis and repair of a failed buck converter and
> such does not take an hour. Even if it did, if this saves a $1k power machine
> it's definitely worth it.

Yeah, and if I had the source code for every software based product I
could likely fix a lot of niggling bugs that the owner sees not worthy
of fixing.

Ain't gonna happen.

Schematics, source code, etc. dip too far into IP territory -- where
lots of existing law and policy is already in place.

If you can't fix a buck converter by visually inspecting the circuit,
you likely shouldn't be tinkering with it.

Next, you'll want the gummit to enforce your patent protections by
inspecting every product sold to see if it contains portions of
your codebase, schematics, etc.

>> I had to replace the power inlet for a friend's laptop. No need for
>> schematics as it's easy to find and "infer" it's role in the design.
>> It took several hours to dissemble everything (cuz I wanted it to
>> go back together with no evidence of having been taken apart),
>> unsolder the old connector, install the new, then reassemble and
>> test.
>
> Laptops are tough, almost never economically repairable. Although I have
> repaired the CCFL inverter in my wife's laptop once and that gave it another
> couple years. Then the backlight tubes gave out. And here I have to say, that
> Dell Inspiron laptop was very easy to open and button up again even.

Laptops aren't intended to be repaired. There are very few FRUs that are
easily accessible. The items that the user is likely to want to replace
(RAM, disk, optical, radio, power pack) are made relatively accessible.
Keyboards and screens with a bit of work. CMOS battery often a headache.

Compare to a desktop:
- RAM, disk, optical, power supply relatively accessible
- keyboard and monitor are a piece of cake
- CMOS battery pretty easy

I.e., what *more* are you going to do with a desktop than you would
with a laptop? (the desktop offers easier access to the CPU, fans,
PCI et al. boards, etc.)

>> Should there also be a mandate to design *FOR* repairability? No
>> use of adhesives, snap together assemblies, special tools/fasteners,
>> etc.? And, should it be *easily* repairable? (who defines easy?)
>
> No, just no blatant thwarting of repair attempts. _And_ schematics, that's key.

Schematics aren't gonna happen. You'll get the same level of detail
that a depot would have. It will be easy for manufacturers (via
their lobbyists) to argue that there's no need for you to have
more information than their "authorized agents". And, any effort
to require them to provide more increases the burden on them.

Attempts to block repair by making parts unobtainable can be
legislated away -- without requiring the manufacturer (or current
owner of the component's IP) to disclose any of that for a third party
to be able to replicate. But, how do you decide what's a fair
price? If I charge you $125 for my ASIC, when does that get in the
practical way of your fixing a device *economically*? (I can argue
that $125 is a fair price as to implement the same functionality
in a PCB -- or, designing an equivalent ASIC from scratch -- would
cost *you* that much; why should I have to subsidize YOUR business??)

Other efforts like signed executables would be tougher to justify
as all they effectively do is prevent copying. OTOH, doesn't
copyright law already legally prevent that? If your copy of
windows ONLY works in YOUR computer, what's your complaint?

Or, are you now going to claim the right to be able to "move"
that copy to another computer? How does the manufacturer
ensure you have DESTROYED the old computer (de-licensed it)?