You might remember a question I had (29th Nov) about repairs
to a device with a switch-mode PSU. It had lost all power and I
suspected the cause was a dry joint on a power switch pad
That was indeed a fault, but there was more. None of the connectors
on the back panel (audio I/O, IEC mains connector, footswitch and
a couple of others) had securing screws. They all relied on the solder
to pads, and as a result most were very very weak. The IEC socket
connection was broken in two places due to the force needed to push
the plug in. For the want of a little anchoring, the unit had to be
repaired, costly and inconvenient to the owners, and could have failed
disastrously through arcing, or worse, had annoying intermittent
behaviour
Another case was a Dunlop Crybaby Wah pedal (cheaply made but
not cheap to buy). For want of a protection diode the thing was totally
burned out by a reverse battery
On 1/13/07, Jinx <spam_OUTjoecolquittTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Another case was a Dunlop Crybaby Wah pedal (cheaply made but
> not cheap to buy). For want of a protection diode the thing was totally
> burned out by a reverse battery
>
>
Ack! I just checked to see how expensive it was. List price is $150!
Paul Anderson wrote:
> On 1/13/07, Jinx <joecolquittKILLspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Another case was a Dunlop Crybaby Wah pedal (cheaply made but
>> not cheap to buy). For want of a protection diode the thing was totally
>> burned out by a reverse battery
>>
>>
>>
> Ack! I just checked to see how expensive it was. List price is $150!
>
>
>
But just think... now they get to sell another one for $150!
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:38:19 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
> Paul Anderson wrote:
> > On 1/13/07, Jinx <.....joecolquittKILLspam.....clear.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> Another case was a Dunlop Crybaby Wah pedal (cheaply made but
> >> not cheap to buy). For want of a protection diode the thing was totally
> >> burned out by a reverse battery
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Ack! I just checked to see how expensive it was. List price is $150!
> >
> >
> >
> But just think... now they get to sell another one for $150!
...or they have lost him as a customer, and everyone he can tell about it, henceforth. Shortsighted and ultimately fatal if the word spreads far
enough!
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:38:19 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
>
>
>> Paul Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/13/07, Jinx <EraseMEjoecolquittspam_OUTTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Another case was a Dunlop Crybaby Wah pedal (cheaply made but
>>>> not cheap to buy). For want of a protection diode the thing was totally
>>>> burned out by a reverse battery
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ack! I just checked to see how expensive it was. List price is $150!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> But just think... now they get to sell another one for $150!
>>
>
> ...or they have lost him as a customer, and everyone he can tell about it, henceforth. Shortsighted and ultimately fatal if the word spreads far
> enough!
>
>
I don't know, Howard. Look at Microsoft. Update a non-working operating
system with a newer, glitzier non-working operating system enough times
in succession and you create the wealthiest
man on earth!
--Bob
> Cheers,
>
>
> Howard Winter
> St.Albans, England
>
>
>
> > But just think... now they get to sell another one for $150!
>
> ...or they have lost him as a customer, and everyone he can tell
> about it, henceforth. Shortsighted and ultimately fatal if the word
> spreads far enough!
That's a valid point Howard, but the thing with a Dunlop Wah, like
Microsoft as Bob mentioned, and other "names" is that it's THE
wah to have if you want to sound like your particular hero or have
aspirations to be a hero yourself (and what 16yo doesn't). No, it's
not difficult to make a wah pedal that's indistinguishable from a
Crybaby, and indestructible to boot, or jeans that wear just as well
and look like $500 Levis, but you know what people are like.
Although a name these days doesn't always mean they are the
quality they once were. I had a guitarist friend who I made effects
pedals for, and if I made an "authentic replica" of a classic, he
wanted it authentic. No new-fangled silicon for old trusty germanium
etc. He was a real pain in the arse sometimes he was ;-) And he
never became a hero (but he did play in and make a record with
Russell Crowe's first band so he's a little more of a guitar hero than
I ever became)
> Heh. Other (valid) points aside, I think you underestimate the
> difficulties of making something "indestructible."
Oh, I know exactly why they're known as "stomp boxes" ;-))
Barring a direct lightning strike, most devices can be made
more than reasonably robust. More so than those perhaps
built to a cost. They should at least be able to stomach an
accidentally reversed battery
Going back to the Dunlop Wah, the circuitry is basic, the
construction is basic. Sold here for NZ$260, way more than
the price of the competition, yet there's no engineering in it
to make it "special". Given that this one was made in China
that's an awfully attractive mark-up if you're part of the Jim
Dunlop estate
On 1/16/07, Bob Axtell <engineerspam_OUTneomailbox.com> wrote:
> >
> I don't know, Howard. Look at Microsoft. Update a non-working operating
> system with a newer, glitzier non-working operating system enough times
> in succession and you create the wealthiest
> man on earth!
>
Business software seems to be quite different from the hardware world.
The rule in Business Software world seems to be "Good enough is enough".
Again, to be fare to Microsoft, it is not really "non-working". In fact, Windows
XP SP2 works most of the time. The software becomes so complicated
that it is not possible to be "bug-free". So we still have to live
with the dominate
players in business software world.
Where can you find a bug free business class operating system? Linux,
FreeBSD, Mac OS X, DOS and Windows? No, none of them. If we believe
that Darwinism, we have to believe Microsoft Windows is the best suitable
to live in this world.
>
> > Heh. Other (valid) points aside, I think you underestimate the
> > difficulties of making something "indestructible."
>
> Oh, I know exactly why they're known as "stomp boxes" )
>
> Barring a direct lightning strike, most devices can be made
> more than reasonably robust. More so than those perhaps
> built to a cost.
You would be surprised to know how many people on this planet deserve the name
'lightning strike'.
> They should at least be able to stomach an
> accidentally reversed battery
Lead acid battery too ? ;-) What about mains direct input ?
> Going back to the Dunlop Wah, the circuitry is basic, the
> construction is basic. Sold here for NZ$260, way more than
> the price of the competition, yet there's no engineering in it
> to make it "special". Given that this one was made in China
I wrote before that the 'chrome' sells more products than the technology. But -
just try to sell that item to an engineer without a schematic and a reasonable
track record and other things 'artisty' people don't really care about.
> Where can you find a bug free business class operating system? Linux,
> FreeBSD, Mac OS X, DOS and Windows? No, none of them. If we believe
> that Darwinism, we have to believe Microsoft Windows is the best suitable
> to live in this world.
I agree with you. It's not perfect, yet it does *so many* things, and
has a somewhat good support for 25+ years old pieces of software... so...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dario Greggio" <@spam@adpm.toKILLspaminwind.it>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <KILLspampiclistKILLspammit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Engineering practice
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
>
>> Where can you find a bug free business class operating system? Linux,
>> FreeBSD, Mac OS X, DOS and Windows? No, none of them. If we believe
>> that Darwinism, we have to believe Microsoft Windows is the best suitable
>> to live in this world.
>
>
> I agree with you. It's not perfect, yet it does *so many* things, and
> has a somewhat good support for 25+ years old pieces of software... so...
>
> --
> Ciao, Dario
> --
> ADPM Synthesis sas - Torino
> --
clear.net.nz> wrote:
