First thing that goes wrong: The battery dies in one of the Shop Fox DC
controller remotes. I take out the battery and check it on a battery
tester. Can't get the needle to move off zero, but how can that be?
The remote just worked a couple of times today, but not consistently.
Open up a new package of 9V's and check it to be sure the battery tester
is ok--it's fine. So I walk back to the shop to install the new battery
in the remote when...damn!...I touched the battery to the connector w/
reverse polarity for a split second. Then I snap the battery into the
connector, expecting it to work. Wrong! The indicator LED lights up
dimly with no buttons pressed; not a good sign. My worst fears are
confirmed when I press "on". Dead as a doornail. Wonderful. Out of
warranty. Go on line to find the Shop Fox phone number. give up; call
the store and get the 1-800 from them. Call Shop Fox; "no, we don't
repair the remotes".
Now I know this is going to cost me more time and more money to correct.
Because I've had a couple of bad Shop Fox remotes already, I figure
why give them more of my money; I'll get an X-10 unit.
I call Radio Crap at the nearby mall; the kid on the phone with the
worst job at the mall (other than wearing a funky costume and jumping on
lemons all day) says he doesn't know if they have what I'm asking for.
So I drive to another RC a bit further away. The kid there offers to
help me find what I'm looking for and proceeds to give one tidbit of
good information on the remotely controlled outlets, and then follows it
with obviously erroneous info (I'm reading the package while he's
blabbing to me). We decide I'm right; well actually, the package info
is king, and it seems as if a key chain remote and an outlet will give
me a remotely controlled outlet. Pay the guy; drive home, head back
into the shop, read the directions and WHAM! Screwed again! In order
to use the remote, you have to press a button for 3 seconds to get it to
register with the Controller? or Big Thingy That Looks Expensive in the
instructions (they went all out to put a picture of the Big Thingy That
Looks Expensive right on the instruction sheet where I'd learn all about
item number THREE that I didn't buy). Mutter a few choice words, put
the outlet and remote back in their respective blister packs and call
the store. The kid makes 2 abject apologies and offers to refund my
money when I "bring it all back". He doesn't understand I already KNEW
I could "get my money back when I bring the 2 parts that won't work
without the Big Thingy That Looks Expensive".
I almost head back to RC with the 2 parts that won't work without the
Big Thingy That Looks Expensive, until I imagine how much worse the
traffic is gonna be in late afternoon. Another sigh, and I decide to
return the 2 parts that won't work without the Big Thingy That Looks
Expensive, tomorrow.
Back out to the shop to mill some walnut. I keep getting 1/4 wide marks
on the wood as it exits the DeWALT planer. Shut it off, grab a
flashlight, crank the handle 7,680 turns to raise the head far enough to
look at the rollers and blades. don't see anything out of the ordinary.
Grab another piece of wood and feed it in, noting exactly where on the
13" wide table it's going so I can figure out where the marks are coming
from exactly. (That took about 4,000 turns in the opposite direction to
get the head positioned to plane the test board.) Now I can see how far
from one end, the marks are. Another 4,000 turns to raise the head back
up for another look-see. STILL don't see any marks on the rollers or
anything out of position. the blades look pristine. This is the sort
of problem that should be easily solved with a flashlight and a close
inspection, yet I don't see ANYTHING out of the ordinary. I'll post a
picture in a bit...
Now that I've eaten supper, I'm afraid to go back out in the shop,
because sure as hell, this stuff happens in threes. Either some
equipment will break down, or it perform poorly, forcing me to regroup
and abandon the project I started this morning.
[Whining off]
Dave
Prime had control of the drawing package and made multitudes of
changes that I associated with being able to charge the Dept of Navy.
What I cited is what I witnessed working for the Dept of Navy as an
EE.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:33:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:11:44 -0800, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Designer of US Navy ship self defense missile system pulled a diode
>>out of a circuit board to save that precious 0.4 cents and that board
>>failure rate went from almost zero to an amazing high number. A
>>subsidiary of the prime manufacturer operated the repair facilities.
>>Unabashed greed! Logistics "Manager" for the prime had a sign on the
>>office wall behind his desk reading "We are a profit oriented
>>organization"!
>
> Do you have a cite for that? Sounds more like urban legend than reality.
>There isn't sufficient volume in defense systems that the savings
>accompanying removal of a component like that would even come close to
>paying for the cost of the change drawings.
>
>>
>>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:52:14 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>> Given the current state of engineering and our level of technology, I'd
>>>> be inclined to label this as a design flaw. i.e. Double-E who designed
>>>
>>>Given the incredible prive tag of .4 cents for a protection diode you
>>>are sugesting to put the manufacturer out of business by needlessly
>>>increased cost?
>>>
>>>As a big german electronics BORG advertises: "Avarice is randy..."
>>>(In german this has at least an alliteration: "Geiz ist Geil")
>
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:27:53 -0800, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>So I walk back to the shop to install the new battery in the remote
>>>when...damn!...I touched the battery to the connector w/ reverse polarity
>>>for a split second.
>>
>>
>>> Wonderful. Out of warranty.
>>
>>
>> What is wrong with this picture?
>>
>>
>It was out of warranty by TIME, so regardless of the problem, it's on my
>dime. They have a 90 day warranty; I've had the unit over 2 years.
>I've seen plenty of remotes and other products have the batteries
>installed backwards for a moment (it's usually the wife that does that
>sort of thing, right? :) ), with nary a problem.
>
>Dave
Try this first:
http://www.remotes.com/remotes/servlet/rs?a=Display&contents=help_deadremote&uid=1134531476710
If that doesn't work, maybe they can supply one.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:16:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> So I walk back to the shop to install the new battery in the remote
>> when...damn!...I touched the battery to the connector w/ reverse polarity
>> for a split second.
>
>> Wonderful. Out of warranty.
>
>What is wrong with this picture?
>
Know where you are going with this Ed, but I'm inclined to agree that if
this were within the warranty period, it could have been covered with the
OP feeling no ethical qualms claiming a replacement.
Given the current state of engineering and our level of technology, I'd
be inclined to label this as a design flaw. i.e. Double-E who designed
the remote should have taken into consideration the possiblity of someone
reversing polarity on the battery, peer reviewers [they did do peer reviews
on the design, right?] should have caught that, design reviews should have
caught the potential, and any Quality/logistics engineers associated with
the design should have identified this failure point and required
mitigation/redesign.
Dead items due to reversed battery polarity should be a thing of the
60's, not the 21'st century.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:13:31 -0800, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>Prime had control of the drawing package and made multitudes of
>changes that I associated with being able to charge the Dept of Navy.
>What I cited is what I witnessed working for the Dept of Navy as an
>EE.
Had to have been a reason other than cost savings for removing that
component. Maybe obsolescence or other considerations. Maybe the need to
pre-screen the parts may have resulted in some cost savings (i.e, the part
itself was really a higher cost than a few tenths of a cent), or the cost
of installation, logistics of being able to reduce part count. Even though
the prime may have had control of the drawing package, doesn't the
procurring agency have right of refusal for design changes?
>
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:33:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:11:44 -0800, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Designer of US Navy ship self defense missile system pulled a diode
>>>out of a circuit board to save that precious 0.4 cents and that board
>>>failure rate went from almost zero to an amazing high number. A
>>>subsidiary of the prime manufacturer operated the repair facilities.
>>>Unabashed greed! Logistics "Manager" for the prime had a sign on the
>>>office wall behind his desk reading "We are a profit oriented
>>>organization"!
>>
>> Do you have a cite for that? Sounds more like urban legend than reality.
>>There isn't sufficient volume in defense systems that the savings
>>accompanying removal of a component like that would even come close to
>>paying for the cost of the change drawings.
>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:52:14 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>> Given the current state of engineering and our level of technology, I'd
>>>>> be inclined to label this as a design flaw. i.e. Double-E who designed
>>>>
>>>>Given the incredible prive tag of .4 cents for a protection diode you
>>>>are sugesting to put the manufacturer out of business by needlessly
>>>>increased cost?
>>>>
>>>>As a big german electronics BORG advertises: "Avarice is randy..."
>>>>(In german this has at least an alliteration: "Geiz ist Geil")
>>
>>
>>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>>
>>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:33:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:11:44 -0800, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Designer of US Navy ship self defense missile system pulled a diode
>>out of a circuit board to save that precious 0.4 cents and that board
>>failure rate went from almost zero to an amazing high number. A
>>subsidiary of the prime manufacturer operated the repair facilities.
>>Unabashed greed! Logistics "Manager" for the prime had a sign on the
>>office wall behind his desk reading "We are a profit oriented
>>organization"!
Defense contractors should be giving charity to the U.S. Government?
>
> Do you have a cite for that? Sounds more like urban legend than reality.
>There isn't sufficient volume in defense systems that the savings
>accompanying removal of a component like that would even come close to
>paying for the cost of the change drawings.
Ain't that the truth. I worked on the Phoenix missile
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html
from the time I hired on with Hughes as an electronics tech and
worked on an experimental assembly line building the first 30
production prototype missiles, to the time that I was the Responsible
Engineer for the solid-state transmitter. Almost 20 years. Our
program manager required that -any- change, even a parts value change,
be evaluated at the all-up missile level. This was after subassembly
and unit level testing, all performed after temperature
stress-screening and included full environmental (temperature, shock
and vibration) testing.
Later in my career I was a group head in a components engineering
department, where we supported all programs. I can guarantee that the
preparation of the component drawings, and change paperwork cost more
than -any- component, even some pricey subassemblies ever did.
Furthermore, each military branch had a program office in our facility
and their represenatives were always involved in design reviews, if
they chose to be.
After retiring from Hughes, I was asked to hire on with Raytheon,
after they bought Hughes. In that capacity, I worked on Standard
Missile, some varients of which are Navy "self-defense missiles."
http://www.raytheon.com/products/standard_missile/
Trust me, we didn't pull any parts out of them willy-nilly either.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> So I walk back to the shop to install the new battery in the remote
> when...damn!...I touched the battery to the connector w/ reverse polarity
> for a split second.
> Wonderful. Out of warranty.
What is wrong with this picture?
David wrote:
> First thing that goes wrong: The battery dies in one of the Shop Fox DC
> controller remotes. I take out the battery and check it on a battery
> tester. Can't get the needle to move off zero, but how can that be? The
> remote just worked a couple of times today, but not consistently. Open
> up a new package of 9V's and check it to be sure the battery tester is
> ok--it's fine. So I walk back to the shop to install the new battery in
> the remote when...damn!...I touched the battery to the connector w/
> reverse polarity for a split second. Then I snap the battery into the
> connector, expecting it to work. Wrong! The indicator LED lights up
> dimly with no buttons pressed; not a good sign. My worst fears are
> confirmed when I press "on". Dead as a doornail. Wonderful. Out of
> warranty. Go on line to find the Shop Fox phone number. give up; call
> the store and get the 1-800 from them. Call Shop Fox; "no, we don't
> repair the remotes".
>
> Now I know this is going to cost me more time and more money to correct.
> Because I've had a couple of bad Shop Fox remotes already, I figure why
> give them more of my money; I'll get an X-10 unit.
>
> I call Radio Crap at the nearby mall; the kid on the phone with the
> worst job at the mall (other than wearing a funky costume and jumping on
> lemons all day) says he doesn't know if they have what I'm asking for.
> So I drive to another RC a bit further away. The kid there offers to
> help me find what I'm looking for and proceeds to give one tidbit of
> good information on the remotely controlled outlets, and then follows it
> with obviously erroneous info (I'm reading the package while he's
> blabbing to me). We decide I'm right; well actually, the package info
> is king, and it seems as if a key chain remote and an outlet will give
> me a remotely controlled outlet. Pay the guy; drive home, head back
> into the shop, read the directions and WHAM! Screwed again! In order
> to use the remote, you have to press a button for 3 seconds to get it to
> register with the Controller? or Big Thingy That Looks Expensive in the
> instructions (they went all out to put a picture of the Big Thingy That
> Looks Expensive right on the instruction sheet where I'd learn all about
> item number THREE that I didn't buy). Mutter a few choice words, put
> the outlet and remote back in their respective blister packs and call
> the store. The kid makes 2 abject apologies and offers to refund my
> money when I "bring it all back". He doesn't understand I already KNEW
> I could "get my money back when I bring the 2 parts that won't work
> without the Big Thingy That Looks Expensive".
>
>
> I almost head back to RC with the 2 parts that won't work without the
> Big Thingy That Looks Expensive, until I imagine how much worse the
> traffic is gonna be in late afternoon. Another sigh, and I decide to
> return the 2 parts that won't work without the Big Thingy That Looks
> Expensive, tomorrow.
>
> Back out to the shop to mill some walnut. I keep getting 1/4 wide marks
> on the wood as it exits the DeWALT planer. Shut it off, grab a
> flashlight, crank the handle 7,680 turns to raise the head far enough to
> look at the rollers and blades. don't see anything out of the ordinary.
> Grab another piece of wood and feed it in, noting exactly where on the
> 13" wide table it's going so I can figure out where the marks are coming
> from exactly. (That took about 4,000 turns in the opposite direction to
> get the head positioned to plane the test board.) Now I can see how far
> from one end, the marks are. Another 4,000 turns to raise the head back
> up for another look-see. STILL don't see any marks on the rollers or
> anything out of position. the blades look pristine. This is the sort
> of problem that should be easily solved with a flashlight and a close
> inspection, yet I don't see ANYTHING out of the ordinary. I'll post a
> picture in a bit...
>
> Now that I've eaten supper, I'm afraid to go back out in the shop,
> because sure as hell, this stuff happens in threes. Either some
> equipment will break down, or it perform poorly, forcing me to regroup
> and abandon the project I started this morning.
>
> [Whining off]
>
> Dave
is it really that big of a deal to turn the dc on by hand
Wes Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:27:53 -0800, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>So I walk back to the shop to install the new battery in the remote
>>>>when...damn!...I touched the battery to the connector w/ reverse polarity
>>>>for a split second.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Wonderful. Out of warranty.
>>>
>>>
>>>What is wrong with this picture?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It was out of warranty by TIME, so regardless of the problem, it's on my
>>dime. They have a 90 day warranty; I've had the unit over 2 years.
>>I've seen plenty of remotes and other products have the batteries
>>installed backwards for a moment (it's usually the wife that does that
>>sort of thing, right? :) ), with nary a problem.
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> Try this first:
>
> http://www.remotes.com/remotes/servlet/rs?a=Display&contents=help_deadremote&uid=1134531476710
>
> If that doesn't work, maybe they can supply one.
>
Thanks for the link, Wes. I followed the instructions, but no joy.
Dave
David <[email protected]> wrote in news:PIWdnVxCYOYg7QLeRVn-
[email protected]:
> [Whining off]
>
> Dave
Sounds like they sold you the wrong thing. Typical of RS.
They have what looks like the right thing on their web-site.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2036303
&cp=&kw=remote+outlet&parentPage=search
It's grounded and all. No fancy expansion interface, just a remote
on/off switch.
Good luck.
Brad
Prime issued an Engineering Change Order prior to submitting an
Engineering Change PROPOSAL to the Govt for review! Board had a very
HIGH failure rate without the diode.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:57:35 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:13:31 -0800, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Prime had control of the drawing package and made multitudes of
>>changes that I associated with being able to charge the Dept of Navy.
>>What I cited is what I witnessed working for the Dept of Navy as an
>>EE.
>
> Had to have been a reason other than cost savings for removing that
>component. Maybe obsolescence or other considerations. Maybe the need to
>pre-screen the parts may have resulted in some cost savings (i.e, the part
>itself was really a higher cost than a few tenths of a cent), or the cost
>of installation, logistics of being able to reduce part count. Even though
>the prime may have had control of the drawing package, doesn't the
>procurring agency have right of refusal for design changes?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 05:45:36 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws*@*yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:52:14 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> Given the current state of engineering and our level of technology, I'd
>>> be inclined to label this as a design flaw. i.e. Double-E who designed
>>
>>Given the incredible prive tag of .4 cents for a protection diode you
>>are sugesting to put the manufacturer out of business by needlessly
>>increased cost?
>
>There is a design consideration to be considered.
>
>With the ever decreasing operational voltages that newer ICs use, a
>diode voltage drop is greater fraction of the available supply
>(battery) voltage.
>
>If this is a remote with a 12V battery, then 0.65 V or so isn't a big
>factor. However, with some of the new devices running off 3 or few
>volts, you're cutting into the supply pretty heavily. A Schottky can
>help but it's still an issue.
I believe the OP indicated this was a 9V battery. Still, the trade
between protecting against catastrophic damage in what is a highly likely
event (reversed polarity applied) and having to deal with the voltage drop
to protect against that event seems to come down very heavily on the
protection side.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Back out to the shop to mill some walnut. I keep getting 1/4 wide marks
> on the wood as it exits the DeWALT planer. Shut it off, grab a
> flashlight, crank the handle 7,680 turns to raise the head far enough to
> look at the rollers and blades. don't see anything out of the ordinary.
> Grab another piece of wood and feed it in, noting exactly where on the
> 13" wide table it's going so I can figure out where the marks are coming
> from exactly. (That took about 4,000 turns in the opposite direction to
> get the head positioned to plane the test board.) Now I can see how far
> from one end, the marks are. Another 4,000 turns to raise the head back
> up for another look-see. STILL don't see any marks on the rollers or
> anything out of position. the blades look pristine. This is the sort
> of problem that should be easily solved with a flashlight and a close
> inspection, yet I don't see ANYTHING out of the ordinary. I'll post a
> picture in a bit...
>
> [Whining off]
>
> Dave
I can't help much with the other stuff but those 4000 turns go allot faster
with a cordless drill driving them. Have a happy holiday there. Count your
blessings.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:11:44 -0800, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>Designer of US Navy ship self defense missile system pulled a diode
>out of a circuit board to save that precious 0.4 cents and that board
>failure rate went from almost zero to an amazing high number. A
>subsidiary of the prime manufacturer operated the repair facilities.
>Unabashed greed! Logistics "Manager" for the prime had a sign on the
>office wall behind his desk reading "We are a profit oriented
>organization"!
Do you have a cite for that? Sounds more like urban legend than reality.
There isn't sufficient volume in defense systems that the savings
accompanying removal of a component like that would even come close to
paying for the cost of the change drawings.
>
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:52:14 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> Given the current state of engineering and our level of technology, I'd
>>> be inclined to label this as a design flaw. i.e. Double-E who designed
>>
>>Given the incredible prive tag of .4 cents for a protection diode you
>>are sugesting to put the manufacturer out of business by needlessly
>>increased cost?
>>
>>As a big german electronics BORG advertises: "Avarice is randy..."
>>(In german this has at least an alliteration: "Geiz ist Geil")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>So I walk back to the shop to install the new battery in the remote
>>when...damn!...I touched the battery to the connector w/ reverse polarity
>>for a split second.
>
>
>> Wonderful. Out of warranty.
>
>
> What is wrong with this picture?
>
>
It was out of warranty by TIME, so regardless of the problem, it's on my
dime. They have a 90 day warranty; I've had the unit over 2 years.
I've seen plenty of remotes and other products have the batteries
installed backwards for a moment (it's usually the wife that does that
sort of thing, right? :) ), with nary a problem.
Dave
NOTME wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Back out to the shop to mill some walnut. I keep getting 1/4 wide marks
>>on the wood as it exits the DeWALT planer. Shut it off, grab a
>>flashlight, crank the handle 7,680 turns to raise the head far enough to
>>look at the rollers and blades. don't see anything out of the ordinary.
>> Grab another piece of wood and feed it in, noting exactly where on the
>>13" wide table it's going so I can figure out where the marks are coming
>>from exactly. (That took about 4,000 turns in the opposite direction to
>>get the head positioned to plane the test board.) Now I can see how far
>>from one end, the marks are. Another 4,000 turns to raise the head back
>>up for another look-see. STILL don't see any marks on the rollers or
>>anything out of position. the blades look pristine. This is the sort
>>of problem that should be easily solved with a flashlight and a close
>>inspection, yet I don't see ANYTHING out of the ordinary. I'll post a
>>picture in a bit...
>
>
>>[Whining off]
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> I can't help much with the other stuff but those 4000 turns go allot faster
> with a cordless drill driving them. Have a happy holiday there. Count your
> blessings.
>
>
Each time I have to raise or lower the setting more than a "skosh", my
cordless drill operated router lift comes to mind. There is no
provision on the 733 for an "assist".
Dave
Dave Jackson wrote:
> Had the same problem with one of my Shop Fox remotes. Changed batteries
> and the one wouldn't work again. Just used the other remote until one day i
> remembered it had a on/off switch on the side. The switch was off. Did you
> check to make sure you didn't accidently push the very small on/off switch
> on the side of the remote to off? --dave
>
>
>
>
oh yeah. I've slide the switch back and forth a number of times.
Dave
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> I believe the OP indicated this was a 9V battery. Still, the trade
> between protecting against catastrophic damage in what is a highly likely
> event (reversed polarity applied) and having to deal with the voltage drop
> to protect against that event seems to come down very heavily on the
> protection side.
>
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
yup. 9V.
Dave
Designer of US Navy ship self defense missile system pulled a diode
out of a circuit board to save that precious 0.4 cents and that board
failure rate went from almost zero to an amazing high number. A
subsidiary of the prime manufacturer operated the repair facilities.
Unabashed greed! Logistics "Manager" for the prime had a sign on the
office wall behind his desk reading "We are a profit oriented
organization"!
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:52:14 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> Given the current state of engineering and our level of technology, I'd
>> be inclined to label this as a design flaw. i.e. Double-E who designed
>
>Given the incredible prive tag of .4 cents for a protection diode you
>are sugesting to put the manufacturer out of business by needlessly
>increased cost?
>
>As a big german electronics BORG advertises: "Avarice is randy..."
>(In german this has at least an alliteration: "Geiz ist Geil")
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:52:14 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> Given the current state of engineering and our level of technology, I'd
>> be inclined to label this as a design flaw. i.e. Double-E who designed
>
>Given the incredible prive tag of .4 cents for a protection diode you
>are sugesting to put the manufacturer out of business by needlessly
>increased cost?
>
You're right of course. What was I thinking? :-)
>As a big german electronics BORG advertises: "Avarice is randy..."
>(In german this has at least an alliteration: "Geiz ist Geil")
I like that!
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Had the same problem with one of my Shop Fox remotes. Changed batteries
and the one wouldn't work again. Just used the other remote until one day i
remembered it had a on/off switch on the side. The switch was off. Did you
check to make sure you didn't accidently push the very small on/off switch
on the side of the remote to off? --dave
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> First thing that goes wrong: The battery dies in one of the Shop Fox DC
> controller remotes. I take out the battery and check it on a battery
> tester. Can't get the needle to move off zero, but how can that be? The
> remote just worked a couple of times today, but not consistently. Open up
> a new package of 9V's and check it to be sure the battery tester is
> ok--it's fine. So I walk back to the shop to install the new battery in
> the remote when...damn!...I touched the battery to the connector w/
> reverse polarity for a split second. Then I snap the battery into the
> connector, expecting it to work. Wrong! The indicator LED lights up
> dimly with no buttons pressed; not a good sign. My worst fears are
> confirmed when I press "on". Dead as a doornail. Wonderful. Out of
> warranty. Go on line to find the Shop Fox phone number. give up; call
> the store and get the 1-800 from them. Call Shop Fox; "no, we don't
> repair the remotes".
>
> Now I know this is going to cost me more time and more money to correct.
> Because I've had a couple of bad Shop Fox remotes already, I figure why
> give them more of my money; I'll get an X-10 unit.
>
> I call Radio Crap at the nearby mall; the kid on the phone with the worst
> job at the mall (other than wearing a funky costume and jumping on lemons
> all day) says he doesn't know if they have what I'm asking for. So I drive
> to another RC a bit further away. The kid there offers to help me find
> what I'm looking for and proceeds to give one tidbit of good information
> on the remotely controlled outlets, and then follows it with obviously
> erroneous info (I'm reading the package while he's blabbing to me). We
> decide I'm right; well actually, the package info is king, and it seems as
> if a key chain remote and an outlet will give me a remotely controlled
> outlet. Pay the guy; drive home, head back into the shop, read the
> directions and WHAM! Screwed again! In order to use the remote, you have
> to press a button for 3 seconds to get it to register with the Controller?
> or Big Thingy That Looks Expensive in the instructions (they went all out
> to put a picture of the Big Thingy That Looks Expensive right on the
> instruction sheet where I'd learn all about item number THREE that I
> didn't buy). Mutter a few choice words, put the outlet and remote back in
> their respective blister packs and call the store. The kid makes 2 abject
> apologies and offers to refund my money when I "bring it all back". He
> doesn't understand I already KNEW I could "get my money back when I bring
> the 2 parts that won't work without the Big Thingy That Looks Expensive".
>
>
> I almost head back to RC with the 2 parts that won't work without the Big
> Thingy That Looks Expensive, until I imagine how much worse the traffic is
> gonna be in late afternoon. Another sigh, and I decide to return the 2
> parts that won't work without the Big Thingy That Looks Expensive,
> tomorrow.
>
> Back out to the shop to mill some walnut. I keep getting 1/4 wide marks
> on the wood as it exits the DeWALT planer. Shut it off, grab a
> flashlight, crank the handle 7,680 turns to raise the head far enough to
> look at the rollers and blades. don't see anything out of the ordinary.
> Grab another piece of wood and feed it in, noting exactly where on the 13"
> wide table it's going so I can figure out where the marks are coming from
> exactly. (That took about 4,000 turns in the opposite direction to get
> the head positioned to plane the test board.) Now I can see how far from
> one end, the marks are. Another 4,000 turns to raise the head back up for
> another look-see. STILL don't see any marks on the rollers or anything
> out of position. the blades look pristine. This is the sort of problem
> that should be easily solved with a flashlight and a close inspection, yet
> I don't see ANYTHING out of the ordinary. I'll post a picture in a bit...
>
> Now that I've eaten supper, I'm afraid to go back out in the shop, because
> sure as hell, this stuff happens in threes. Either some equipment will
> break down, or it perform poorly, forcing me to regroup and abandon the
> project I started this morning.
>
> [Whining off]
>
> Dave
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:52:14 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> Given the current state of engineering and our level of technology, I'd
>> be inclined to label this as a design flaw. i.e. Double-E who designed
>
>Given the incredible prive tag of .4 cents for a protection diode you
>are sugesting to put the manufacturer out of business by needlessly
>increased cost?
There is a design consideration to be considered.
With the ever decreasing operational voltages that newer ICs use, a
diode voltage drop is greater fraction of the available supply
(battery) voltage.
If this is a remote with a 12V battery, then 0.65 V or so isn't a big
factor. However, with some of the new devices running off 3 or few
volts, you're cutting into the supply pretty heavily. A Schottky can
help but it's still an issue.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Given the current state of engineering and our level of technology, I'd
> be inclined to label this as a design flaw. i.e. Double-E who designed
Given the incredible prive tag of .4 cents for a protection diode you
are sugesting to put the manufacturer out of business by needlessly
increased cost?
As a big german electronics BORG advertises: "Avarice is randy..."
(In german this has at least an alliteration: "Geiz ist Geil")
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Brad Bruce wrote:
> David <[email protected]> wrote in news:PIWdnVxCYOYg7QLeRVn-
> [email protected]:
>
>
>>[Whining off]
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> Sounds like they sold you the wrong thing. Typical of RS.
>
> They have what looks like the right thing on their web-site.
>
> http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2036303
> &cp=&kw=remote+outlet&parentPage=search
>
> It's grounded and all. No fancy expansion interface, just a remote
> on/off switch.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Brad
Thanks Brad. the one spec I can't find listed is the amperage it will
handle. Also, the owners manual link doesn't work. When I get a chance
I'll see if there's anyone at RC that knows the amperage.
Dave