Hi,

by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .

It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
But that does not work out too well either:

1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.

FYI:

I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
Nobody here could.

Question for JL:

Where in the above did I mention " engineers " ???
Nowhere. And I was not thinking of them.
I was not thinking of bench techs either.

JL wants me to debate his opinions with him.
Not bloody doing.
Like his faux invitations to post a schem of mine - it's a hostile trap.
Since commercial products do not have the designer's name printed anywhere let alone their qualifications - one is left to guess.
My guess is VERY few were the efforts of graduate EEs.
They are mostly the work of " product designers " working alone or in a small team. Employed by a manufacturer or else free lance.

These guys specialise in particular products, constantly evolving new versions as required by manufacturers to keep them in business.
Low cost design using only readily available components is crucial.
A product designer must remain very disciplined to this need.

Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.

So all non-obvious and many dumb mistakes get through regularly.
A small sample wind up on my bench, having failed.

So Phil shakes his head and wonders:

" Who the hell designed this POS ? "

..... Phil

On 30/11/2021 21:22, Phil Allison wrote:

<snip>

> Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.

It's what we call the Aussie version of ISO 9000. "She'll be right!"

Happens all too often, but at least then you get a chance to fix it and
bring out a 'new improved' version.

--
Cheers
Clive

Clive Arthur wrote:
===============
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.
> It's what we call the Aussie version of ISO 9000. "She'll be right!"
>
> Happens all too often, but at least then you get a chance to fix it and
> bring out a 'new improved' version.
>
>

** Some old problems are gone while brand new, shiny ones are added at the same time.

One Chinese built, pro-audio power amp ( branded Deton ) would blow its 20A supply fuse if the power switch was cycled within 2 seconds.
Same for any other event that caused AC loss for less than 2 seconds.

Every one that came into Australia, via a Melbourne importer, had be returned to have a series of mods that I devised fitted.

The naive importer wanted *me* to help the Chinese to fix their terrible design.
Had to explain to him there was no point in trying.
They would have moved on to a different model by then and I had no knowledge of it.

...... Phil

Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 21:22, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.
>
> It's what we call the Aussie version of ISO 9000. "She'll be right!"
>
> Happens all too often, but at least then you get a chance to fix it and
> bring out a 'new improved' version.

The fact that these days you can bring out that 'new improved' version
as a download on a website lowers the bar even further... why bother
to get it right the first time, when you can make your users update
the product and try again?

Rob wrote:
==========
>>
> >> Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.
> >
> > It's what we call the Aussie version of ISO 9000. "She'll be right!"
> >
> > Happens all too often, but at least then you get a chance to fix it and
> > bring out a 'new improved' version.
>
>
> The fact that these days you can bring out that 'new improved' version
> as a download on a website lowers the bar even further..

** Got SFA to do with electronics design.

> why bother to get it right the first time, when you can make your users update
> the product and try again?

** Users hate buggy products.

Puts them off that brand next time the buy.

On 12/1/2021 5:01 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> ==========
>>>
>>>> Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.
>>>
>>> It's what we call the Aussie version of ISO 9000. "She'll be right!"
>>>
>>> Happens all too often, but at least then you get a chance to fix it and
>>> bring out a 'new improved' version.
>>
>>
>> The fact that these days you can bring out that 'new improved' version
>> as a download on a website lowers the bar even further..
>
> ** Got SFA to do with electronics design.
>
>> why bother to get it right the first time, when you can make your users update
>> the product and try again?
>
> ** Users hate buggy products.
>
> Puts them off that brand next time the buy.
>

Raise the price until the reviews say "It has some bugs, but still an
exceptional value for someone looking to get into the world of high-end
stereos/watches/cars."

They built a whole luxury car brand around that philosophy it's called Audi

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> ==========
>>>
>> >> Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.
>> >
>> > It's what we call the Aussie version of ISO 9000. "She'll be right!"
>> >
>> > Happens all too often, but at least then you get a chance to fix it and
>> > bring out a 'new improved' version.
>>
>>
>> The fact that these days you can bring out that 'new improved' version
>> as a download on a website lowers the bar even further..
>
> ** Got SFA to do with electronics design.

Almost ALL electronics products today have some form of firmware.

>> why bother to get it right the first time, when you can make your users update
>> the product and try again?
>
> ** Users hate buggy products.
>
> Puts them off that brand next time the buy.

I don't think that really works to promote the design of good products.
Almost all brands do this these days, and the ones that don't will
likely be behind on features or otherwise have points against them
when choosing.

Rob the Code Scribbler wrote:
==========================

> >>
> >> The fact that these days you can bring out that 'new improved' version
> >> as a download on a website lowers the bar even further..
> >
> > ** Got SFA to do with electronics design.

> Almost ALL electronics products today have some form of firmware.

** Got SFA to do with electronics design.

>
> > ** Users hate buggy products.
> >
> > Puts them off that brand next time the buy.

> I don't think that really works to promote the design of good products.

** Really - yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn......

Go away troll.

..... Phil

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 4:22:11 PM UTC-5, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>
> It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
> However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
> But that does not work out too well either:
>
> 1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
> 2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
> 3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
>
> FYI:
>
> I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
> I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
> Nobody here could.
>
> Question for JL:
>
> Where in the above did I mention " engineers " ???
> Nowhere. And I was not thinking of them.
> I was not thinking of bench techs either.
>
> JL wants me to debate his opinions with him.
> Not bloody doing.
> Like his faux invitations to post a schem of mine - it's a hostile trap.
>
> Since commercial products do not have the designer's name printed anywhere let alone their qualifications - one is left to guess.
> My guess is VERY few were the efforts of graduate EEs.
> They are mostly the work of " product designers " working alone or in a small team. Employed by a manufacturer or else free lance.
>
> These guys specialise in particular products, constantly evolving new versions as required by manufacturers to keep them in business.
> Low cost design using only readily available components is crucial.
> A product designer must remain very disciplined to this need.
>
> Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.
>
> So all non-obvious and many dumb mistakes get through regularly.
> A small sample wind up on my bench, having failed.
>
> So Phil shakes his head and wonders:
>
> " Who the hell designed this POS ? "

Don't kid yourself. The NG doesn't have a name. It's just a collection of self-absorbed types who think they're participating in something with a name. USENET is stone cold dead, it's a dead concept, always was.

>
>
>
> .... Phil

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 09:21:16 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 4:22:11 PM UTC-5, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
>> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
>> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
>> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>>
>> It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
>> However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
>> But that does not work out too well either:
>>
>> 1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
>> 2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
>> 3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
>>
>> FYI:
>>
>> I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
>> I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
>> Nobody here could.
>>
>> Question for JL:
>>
>> Where in the above did I mention " engineers " ???
>> Nowhere. And I was not thinking of them.
>> I was not thinking of bench techs either.
>>
>> JL wants me to debate his opinions with him.
>> Not bloody doing.
>> Like his faux invitations to post a schem of mine - it's a hostile trap.
>>
>> Since commercial products do not have the designer's name printed anywhere let alone their qualifications - one is left to guess.
>> My guess is VERY few were the efforts of graduate EEs.
>> They are mostly the work of " product designers " working alone or in a small team. Employed by a manufacturer or else free lance.
>>
>> These guys specialise in particular products, constantly evolving new versions as required by manufacturers to keep them in business.
>> Low cost design using only readily available components is crucial.
>> A product designer must remain very disciplined to this need.
>>
>> Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.
>>
>> So all non-obvious and many dumb mistakes get through regularly.
>> A small sample wind up on my bench, having failed.
>>
>> So Phil shakes his head and wonders:
>>
>> " Who the hell designed this POS ? "
>
>Don't kid yourself. The NG doesn't have a name. It's just a collection of self-absorbed types who think they're participating in something with a name. USENET is stone cold dead, it's a dead concept, always was.
>
>

Posts here get reposted to some non-usenet forums. And this one is
still indexed by search engines.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 09:21:16 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 4:22:11 PM UTC-5, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
> >> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
> >> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
> >> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
> >>
> >> It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
> >> However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
> >> But that does not work out too well either:
> >>
> >> 1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
> >> 2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
> >> 3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
> >>
> >> FYI:
> >>
> >> I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
> >> I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
> >> Nobody here could.
> >>
> >> Question for JL:
> >>
> >> Where in the above did I mention " engineers " ???
> >> Nowhere. And I was not thinking of them.
> >> I was not thinking of bench techs either.
> >>
> >> JL wants me to debate his opinions with him.
> >> Not bloody doing.
> >> Like his faux invitations to post a schem of mine - it's a hostile trap.
> >>
> >> Since commercial products do not have the designer's name printed anywhere let alone their qualifications - one is left to guess.
> >> My guess is VERY few were the efforts of graduate EEs.
> >> They are mostly the work of " product designers " working alone or in a small team. Employed by a manufacturer or else free lance.
> >>
> >> These guys specialise in particular products, constantly evolving new versions as required by manufacturers to keep them in business.
> >> Low cost design using only readily available components is crucial.
> >> A product designer must remain very disciplined to this need.
> >>
> >> Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.
> >>
> >> So all non-obvious and many dumb mistakes get through regularly.
> >> A small sample wind up on my bench, having failed.
> >>
> >> So Phil shakes his head and wonders:
> >>
> >> " Who the hell designed this POS ? "
> >
> >Don't kid yourself. The NG doesn't have a name. It's just a collection of self-absorbed types who think they're participating in something with a name. USENET is stone cold dead, it's a dead concept, always was.
> >
> >
> Posts here get reposted to some non-usenet forums. And this one is
> still indexed by search engines.

You mean they were found by some bot crawler,

>
>
>
> --
>
> Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
> but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
> always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:58:59 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 12:25:04 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 09:21:16 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 4:22:11 PM UTC-5, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> by "bad" I mean the name is highly ambiguous.
>> >> Is "design" a noun or a verb round here ?
>> >> JL and others seem convinced it is a verb: " to design ".
>> >> But it is every bit correct to think it's a noun: " a design " .
>> >>
>> >> It is very hard to discuss anyone's design without seeing a schematic and this NG is non binary.
>> >> However it is easy to post links ( pdfs) to schematics found on the web, allowing discussion of them.
>> >> But that does not work out too well either:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Folk think they see flaws evident in a schem that does not exist in practice.
>> >> 2. Others may consider a schem fine when a built version is in fact hopelessly flawed.
>> >> 3. Folk like to make comments on a schem while barely understanding how it works or even what it does.
>> >>
>> >> FYI:
>> >>
>> >> I annoyed a few posters here a couple of years back by posting links to schems of well known audio products that were seriously flawed.
>> >> I challenged folk to spot the flaw or flaws.
>> >> Nobody here could.
>> >>
>> >> Question for JL:
>> >>
>> >> Where in the above did I mention " engineers " ???
>> >> Nowhere. And I was not thinking of them.
>> >> I was not thinking of bench techs either.
>> >>
>> >> JL wants me to debate his opinions with him.
>> >> Not bloody doing.
>> >> Like his faux invitations to post a schem of mine - it's a hostile trap.
>> >>
>> >> Since commercial products do not have the designer's name printed anywhere let alone their qualifications - one is left to guess.
>> >> My guess is VERY few were the efforts of graduate EEs.
>> >> They are mostly the work of " product designers " working alone or in a small team. Employed by a manufacturer or else free lance.
>> >>
>> >> These guys specialise in particular products, constantly evolving new versions as required by manufacturers to keep them in business.
>> >> Low cost design using only readily available components is crucial.
>> >> A product designer must remain very disciplined to this need.
>> >>
>> >> Most manufacturers have the idea that if a prototype works - it's fine to go ahead and mass produce them. Time's a wastin'.
>> >>
>> >> So all non-obvious and many dumb mistakes get through regularly.
>> >> A small sample wind up on my bench, having failed.
>> >>
>> >> So Phil shakes his head and wonders:
>> >>
>> >> " Who the hell designed this POS ? "
>> >
>> >Don't kid yourself. The NG doesn't have a name. It's just a collection of self-absorbed types who think they're participating in something with a name. USENET is stone cold dead, it's a dead concept, always was.
>> >
>> >
>> Posts here get reposted to some non-usenet forums. And this one is
>> still indexed by search engines.
>
>You mean they were found by some bot crawler,

I somtimes google about some exotic electronic thing, and tend to find
my own posts here.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

Fred Bloggs wrote:
==============

>
> Don't kid yourself. The NG doesn't have a name.

** Read the very first line of my post - fuckhead.

> It's just a collection of self-absorbed types who think they're participating in something with a name.

** Like you?

> USENET is stone cold dead,

** Makes you a necrophile.

..... Phil