High effciency motors

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
>motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
>
><http://www.grainger.com/content/motors-legislation?cm_re=CS_Banner-_-
>General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616>
>
>While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how
>much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased
>by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking
>"increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect
>we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go
>up.
>
>Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a
>defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor
>manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things.
>
>Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with
>increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's
>specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new
>general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can
>expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity.

So to have the inductance of the motor balanced by capacitance and it
is high efficiency motor. This has been the case in "high efficiency
appliances" or Energy Star ones.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

> While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
> motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
--------------------------------------------------------
Have a model number, price and availability?

Lew

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> > While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
>> > split-phase
>> > motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> Have a model number, price and availability?
>
> 5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grainger description:

General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

Nice try but no cigar.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:


> Grainger description:
>
> General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
> Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
----------------------------------------------------------
> Capacitor-Start is not split phase.
>
> Nice try but no cigar.
--------------------------------------------------
"J. Clarke" wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_motor#Split-phase_motor

> Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
> swimming
> with the crocodiles.
------------------------------------------------
You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
motor.

Lew

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 17:53:29 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>>
>>> > While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
>>> > split-phase
>>> > motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> Have a model number, price and availability?
>>
>> 5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Grainger description:
>
>General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
>Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Capacitor-Start is not split phase.

A capacitor-start motor most certainly is a split-phase motor but the
reverse is not necessarily true. That's exactly what the capacitor is
for (to split the phases). The phase split can be done with resistance
or capacitance.

>Nice try but no cigar.
>
You're wrong.
>
>
>
>
>

On 8/1/2015 9:09 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/31/2015 12:38 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>
>>> This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We
>>> get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get
>>> melamine in baby formula.
>>
>> We get defective air bags from Japan. Countless recalls on tainted
>> meats and vegetables. Thank you Blue Bell.
>
> A little bit of apples and oranges there. The ones you list
> weren't intentional (at least, as far as anyone knows). The
> melamine, and other incidents of adulterated foods in China,
> were purposefully done.
>
> John
>
Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag
thing was not intentionally ignored. This has been a problem for many
years. Simple QC testing at random points for the last 10 years would
have shown this and IIRC they knew it was a problem and did choose to
wait and see and or get caught.

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:07:37 PM UTC-7, dpb wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

> > The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
> > automaker... manage to screw up a damned _switch_?

> I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in
> the switch than any of the other GMs.

As I heard it, a fix was implemented, but the documentation of the fix
was never filed: a mix of good and bad parts were in stock, with no
stock-number difference. So, your switch MIGHT be just fine.

GM investigated the switch problem initially by taking an example from the
(new, good-design) stock, and cleared it. That's why the problem lingered;
a used-part example of bad-design type had to be located and identified.

On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
>>>> is the problem.
>>>
>>> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
>>> arranged--unless something comes loose internally
>>
>> That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
>> rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
>> The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
>> everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
>> could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
>> I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
>> society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
>> are to go after any thing that moves.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> and that would see to
>>> have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
>>> "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
>>> engineering root-cause analysis.
>>>
>>> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
>>> operator for doing something silly.
>>
>> Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
>> know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
>> from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
>>
>> But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
>> they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
>> Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
>> that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
>> like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
>> it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
>> because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
>> appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
>> originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
>> have opened it with a kitchen can opener.
>
> It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
> turned off the airbags are turned off.
>

Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
vehicles had them.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> > While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
> > motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
> >
> > <http://www.grainger.com/content/motors-legislation?cm_re=CS_Banner-_-
> > General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616>
> >
> > While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how
> > much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased
> > by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking
> > "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect
> > we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go
> > up.
> >
> > Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a
> > defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor
> > manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things.
>
> The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make such
> a simple change to meet this standard?

The same reason they don't seem to be able to keep lead out of toys?

> I highly suspect that because the companies, like most any brand of tool
> that is built there and sold here, dictate the specifications of the
> product and that a simple change in the motor will not be any kind of
> issue at all.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> >> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag
> >> thing was not intentionally ignored. ...
> >
> > Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
> > malfeasance...
>
> That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
> make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
> then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
> they're not the same.
>
> John

How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long
tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't discern
any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on issuing a
recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to be
recalled".

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air
> >> >> bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ...
> >> >
> >> > Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
> >> > malfeasance...
> >>
> >> That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
> >> make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
> >> then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
> >> they're not the same.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> > How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long
> > tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't
> > discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on
> > issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to
> > be recalled".
>
> Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag
> thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow.
>
> One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take
> the GM ignition switch case.

The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/1/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> [email protected] says...
> >>>>
> >>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air
> >>>>>> bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
> >>>>> malfeasance...
> >>>>
> >>>> That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
> >>>> make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
> >>>> then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
> >>>> they're not the same.
> >>>>
> >>>> John
> >>>
> >>> How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long
> >>> tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't
> >>> discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on
> >>> issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to
> >>> be recalled".
> >>
> >> Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag
> >> thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow.
> >>
> >> One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take
> >> the GM ignition switch case.
> >
> > The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
> > automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
> > in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?
> >
> Having been the service sales manager for a large Oldsmobile dealership
> in the mid 80's and exclusively sold GM parts for many years, they
> weigh the cost of litigation vs. the cost to make it right.
> Year after year after year you sell the same part that fits nearly every
> model of GM vehicle and they never improve it.

This wasn't a part that had been in uses since the '50s though, it was a
design that was new around 2002.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
>
> > The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
> > automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
> > in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?
>
> Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the
> ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the
> key to change positions.

Because it does not do so on a Volvo, a Jeep, a Lincoln, or anything
else except certain GM models.

And it's not a matter of "complaining", it's a matter of BEING DEAD.

> I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in
> the switch than any of the other GMs.

You may have lucked out and gotten the better end of the manufacturing
tolerances.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
> > On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
> >> is the problem.
> >
> > Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
> > arranged--unless something comes loose internally
>
> That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
> rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
> The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
> everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
> could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
> I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
> society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
> are to go after any thing that moves.
>
>
>
>
> and that would see to
> > have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
> > "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
> > engineering root-cause analysis.
> >
> > I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
> > operator for doing something silly.
>
> Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
> know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
> from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
>
> But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
> they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
> Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
> that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
> like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
> it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
> because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
> appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
> originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
> have opened it with a kitchen can opener.

It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
turned off the airbags are turned off.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> > @swbelldotnet says...
> >>
> >> On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
> >>> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
> >>>> is the problem.
> >>>
> >>> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
> >>> arranged--unless something comes loose internally
> >>
> >> That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
> >> rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
> >> The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
> >> everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
> >> could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
> >> I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
> >> society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
> >> are to go after any thing that moves.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> and that would see to
> >>> have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
> >>> "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
> >>> engineering root-cause analysis.
> >>>
> >>> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
> >>> operator for doing something silly.
> >>
> >> Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
> >> know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
> >> from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
> >>
> >> But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
> >> they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
> >> Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
> >> that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
> >> like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
> >> it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
> >> because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
> >> appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
> >> originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
> >> have opened it with a kitchen can opener.
> >
> > It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
> > turned off the airbags are turned off.
> >
>
> Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
> bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
> vehicles had them.

Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
itself off, that's a bad situation.

Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
intentionally turns it off.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> > @swbelldotnet says...
> >>
> >> On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> >>> @swbelldotnet says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
> >>>>> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
> >>>>>> is the problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
> >>>>> arranged--unless something comes loose internally
> >>>>
> >>>> That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
> >>>> rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
> >>>> The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
> >>>> everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
> >>>> could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
> >>>> I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
> >>>> society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
> >>>> are to go after any thing that moves.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> and that would see to
> >>>>> have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
> >>>>> "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
> >>>>> engineering root-cause analysis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
> >>>>> operator for doing something silly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
> >>>> know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
> >>>> from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
> >>>>
> >>>> But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
> >>>> they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
> >>>> Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
> >>>> that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
> >>>> like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
> >>>> it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
> >>>> because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
> >>>> appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
> >>>> originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
> >>>> have opened it with a kitchen can opener.
> >>>
> >>> It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
> >>> turned off the airbags are turned off.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
> >> bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
> >> vehicles had them.
> >
> > Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
> > itself off, that's a bad situation.
>
> It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.
>
>
> >
> > Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
> > line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
> > intentionally turns it off.
> >
> Well shit happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.

If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.

Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
former employee or something?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> > While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
> > motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Have a model number, price and availability?

5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >>
> >> > While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
> >> > split-phase
> >> > motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> >> Have a model number, price and availability?
> >
> > 5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Grainger description:
>
> General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
> Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Capacitor-Start is not split phase.
>
> Nice try but no cigar.
>
> Lew

Yes, Cigar, Lew. The trouble is you wouldn't know a cigar if it beat
you over the head with a titanium cluebat.

Do you _try_ to annoy people with this kind of pretend-ignorance?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> [email protected] says...
> >>>
> >>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
> >>>> split-phase
> >>>> motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Have a model number, price and availability?
> >>
> >> 5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Grainger description:
> >
> > General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
> > Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Capacitor-Start is not split phase.
> >
> > Nice try but no cigar.
> >
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_motor#Split-phase_motor

Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on swimming
with the crocodiles.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>
> > Grainger description:
> >
> > General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
> > Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Capacitor-Start is not split phase.
> >
> > Nice try but no cigar.
> --------------------------------------------------
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_motor#Split-phase_motor
>
> > Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
> > swimming
> > with the crocodiles.
> ------------------------------------------------
> You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
> you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
> motor.

Yep, I figured you were making some inane quibble over nomenclature. If
you fancy yourself an engineer, don't quit your day job.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/2/2015 5:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> > @swbelldotnet says...
> >>
> >> On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> >>> @swbelldotnet says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> >>>>> @swbelldotnet says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
> >>>>>>>> is the problem.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
> >>>>>>> arranged--unless something comes loose internally
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
> >>>>>> rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
> >>>>>> The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
> >>>>>> everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
> >>>>>> could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
> >>>>>> I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
> >>>>>> society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
> >>>>>> are to go after any thing that moves.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and that would see to
> >>>>>>> have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
> >>>>>>> "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
> >>>>>>> engineering root-cause analysis.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
> >>>>>>> operator for doing something silly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
> >>>>>> know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
> >>>>>> from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
> >>>>>> they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
> >>>>>> Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
> >>>>>> that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
> >>>>>> like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
> >>>>>> it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
> >>>>>> because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
> >>>>>> appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
> >>>>>> originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
> >>>>>> have opened it with a kitchen can opener.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
> >>>>> turned off the airbags are turned off.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
> >>>> bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
> >>>> vehicles had them.
> >>>
> >>> Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
> >>> itself off, that's a bad situation.
> >>
> >> It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
> >>> line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
> >>> intentionally turns it off.
> >>>
> >> Well shit happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.
> >
> > If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
> > us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.
> >
> > Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
> > former employee or something?
> >
>
> I'm not defending them at all. I'm just saying that of all the
> accidents that have been blamed on the ignition switch many turn out to
> not be related to the switch. I assure you many many more people have
> had accidents that were not caused by the switch however that does not
> prevent an attorney from going after every hint of an accident.
> I am clueless of how many are actually caused by the switch compared to
> how many had nothing to do with the switch but I would bet you the
> later overwhelms the former.
> You are simply buying into the hype. I personally dealt with a lot of
> these type cases for most of the 80's. Every time there was an accident
> after a publicized recall, attorneys, insurance companies, and factory
> reps had to inspect the vehicle before any repairs were made by our
> dealership. Very seldom did that amount to anything other than the
> insurance company paying for the repair.

What are you on about? I never said anything about quantity of
accidents. If ONE person gets dead as that result of this piece of shit
it's TOO DAMNED MANY.

You're starting to sound like the guy at Ford who figured that not
enough people would get killed when Pintos blew up for it to be worth
fixing the design.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> On 8/3/2015 5:45 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> > @swbelldotnet says...
> >>
> >> On 8/2/2015 5:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> >>> @swbelldotnet says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> >>>>> @swbelldotnet says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> >>>>>>> @swbelldotnet says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
> >>>>>>>>>> is the problem.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
> >>>>>>>>> arranged--unless something comes loose internally
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
> >>>>>>>> rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
> >>>>>>>> The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
> >>>>>>>> everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
> >>>>>>>> could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
> >>>>>>>> I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
> >>>>>>>> society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
> >>>>>>>> are to go after any thing that moves.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> and that would see to
> >>>>>>>>> have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
> >>>>>>>>> "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
> >>>>>>>>> engineering root-cause analysis.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
> >>>>>>>>> operator for doing something silly.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
> >>>>>>>> know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
> >>>>>>>> from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
> >>>>>>>> they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
> >>>>>>>> Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
> >>>>>>>> that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
> >>>>>>>> like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
> >>>>>>>> it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
> >>>>>>>> because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
> >>>>>>>> appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
> >>>>>>>> originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
> >>>>>>>> have opened it with a kitchen can opener.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
> >>>>>>> turned off the airbags are turned off.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
> >>>>>> bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
> >>>>>> vehicles had them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
> >>>>> itself off, that's a bad situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
> >>>>> line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
> >>>>> intentionally turns it off.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Well shit happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.
> >>>
> >>> If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
> >>> us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.
> >>>
> >>> Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
> >>> former employee or something?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not defending them at all. I'm just saying that of all the
> >> accidents that have been blamed on the ignition switch many turn out to
> >> not be related to the switch. I assure you many many more people have
> >> had accidents that were not caused by the switch however that does not
> >> prevent an attorney from going after every hint of an accident.
> >> I am clueless of how many are actually caused by the switch compared to
> >> how many had nothing to do with the switch but I would bet you the
> >> later overwhelms the former.
> >> You are simply buying into the hype. I personally dealt with a lot of
> >> these type cases for most of the 80's. Every time there was an accident
> >> after a publicized recall, attorneys, insurance companies, and factory
> >> reps had to inspect the vehicle before any repairs were made by our
> >> dealership. Very seldom did that amount to anything other than the
> >> insurance company paying for the repair.
> >
> > What are you on about? I never said anything about quantity of
> > accidents. If ONE person gets dead as that result of this piece of shit
> > it's TOO DAMNED MANY.
> >
> > You're starting to sound like the guy at Ford who figured that not
> > enough people would get killed when Pintos blew up for it to be worth
> > fixing the design.
> >
> Then I advise you to stop driving any vehicle from this point on and
> stay in doors. There is hardly a vehicle out there that does not have
> the potential to have an accident for one reason or another.
>
> Before you know it there will be recalls on crash avoidance systems,
> lane change systems, and back up cameras because the drivers ignored
> the warnings.

Please, PLEASE buy a Pinto and remove the brake lights.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:05:50 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Grainger description:
> >>
> >> General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
> >> Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >> Capacitor-Start is not split phase.
> >>
> >> Nice try but no cigar.
> >--------------------------------------------------
> >"J. Clarke" wrote:
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_motor#Split-phase_motor
> >
> >> Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
> >> swimming
> >> with the crocodiles.
> >------------------------------------------------
> >You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
> >you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
> >motor.
> >
> Wrong. A capacitor-start motor is just a special case of a
> split-phase motor. There are a few ways to split the phase but a
> different method doesn't mean that the phase isn't split.

Don't waste your time--if the catalog doesn't say "capacitor-start
split-phase" he's not gonna accept it.

In article <[email protected]>, sails.man1
@verizon.net says...
>
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>
> > Grainger description:
> >
> > General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
> > Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Capacitor-Start is not split phase.
> >
> > Nice try but no cigar.
> --------------------------------------------------
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_motor#Split-phase_motor
>
> > Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
> > swimming
> > with the crocodiles.
> ------------------------------------------------
> You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
> you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
> motor.

I don't know nuthin about this but

http://www.leeson.com/TechnicalInformation/sphase.html

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
> motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
>
> <http://www.grainger.com/content/motors-legislation?cm_re=CS_Banner-_-
> General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616>
>
> While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how
> much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased
> by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking
> "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect
> we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go
> up.
>
> Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a
> defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor
> manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things.

The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make such
a simple change to meet this standard?
I highly suspect that because the companies, like most any brand of tool
that is built there and sold here, dictate the specifications of the
product and that a simple change in the motor will not be any kind of
issue at all.

>
> Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with
> increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's
> specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new
> general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can
> expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity.
>

On 8/3/2015 5:45 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 8/2/2015 5:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>>>>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
>>>>>>>>>> is the problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
>>>>>>>>> arranged--unless something comes loose internally
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
>>>>>>>> rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
>>>>>>>> The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
>>>>>>>> everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
>>>>>>>> could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
>>>>>>>> society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
>>>>>>>> are to go after any thing that moves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and that would see to
>>>>>>>>> have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
>>>>>>>>> "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
>>>>>>>>> engineering root-cause analysis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
>>>>>>>>> operator for doing something silly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
>>>>>>>> know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
>>>>>>>> from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
>>>>>>>> they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
>>>>>>>> Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
>>>>>>>> that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
>>>>>>>> like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
>>>>>>>> it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
>>>>>>>> because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
>>>>>>>> appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
>>>>>>>> originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
>>>>>>>> have opened it with a kitchen can opener.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
>>>>>>> turned off the airbags are turned off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
>>>>>> bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
>>>>>> vehicles had them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
>>>>> itself off, that's a bad situation.
>>>>
>>>> It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
>>>>> line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
>>>>> intentionally turns it off.
>>>>>
>>>> Well shit happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.
>>>
>>> If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
>>> us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.
>>>
>>> Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
>>> former employee or something?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not defending them at all. I'm just saying that of all the
>> accidents that have been blamed on the ignition switch many turn out to
>> not be related to the switch. I assure you many many more people have
>> had accidents that were not caused by the switch however that does not
>> prevent an attorney from going after every hint of an accident.
>> I am clueless of how many are actually caused by the switch compared to
>> how many had nothing to do with the switch but I would bet you the
>> later overwhelms the former.
>> You are simply buying into the hype. I personally dealt with a lot of
>> these type cases for most of the 80's. Every time there was an accident
>> after a publicized recall, attorneys, insurance companies, and factory
>> reps had to inspect the vehicle before any repairs were made by our
>> dealership. Very seldom did that amount to anything other than the
>> insurance company paying for the repair.
>
> What are you on about? I never said anything about quantity of
> accidents. If ONE person gets dead as that result of this piece of shit
> it's TOO DAMNED MANY.
>
> You're starting to sound like the guy at Ford who figured that not
> enough people would get killed when Pintos blew up for it to be worth
> fixing the design.
>
Then I advise you to stop driving any vehicle from this point on and
stay in doors. There is hardly a vehicle out there that does not have
the potential to have an accident for one reason or another.

Before you know it there will be recalls on crash avoidance systems,
lane change systems, and back up cameras because the drivers ignored
the warnings.

On 8/1/2015 5:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
>>> automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
>>> in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?
>>
>> Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the
>> ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the
>> key to change positions.
>
> Because it does not do so on a Volvo, a Jeep, a Lincoln, or anything
> else except certain GM models.

It did on the late 60's-70's on most all Fords that had a wad of keys
hanging on the ignition lock. You eventually had to lift the shift
lever before you could turn the key. When I was a kid I always wondered
why Ford owners rested their left arm on top of the steering wheel and
grabbed and lifted the shift lever with their left hand every time they
wanted to start the engine. I learned why when I started driving. Not
exactly the same thing but the integration of the ignition lock and
shift lever position was eventually compromised. Than again it may have
been more if an issue with the park lever detent in the park position.
What ever the case the ignition switch would not engage unless the lever
was in the proper position.


>
> And it's not a matter of "complaining", it's a matter of BEING DEAD.
>
>> I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in
>> the switch than any of the other GMs.
>
> You may have lucked out and gotten the better end of the manufacturing
> tolerances.

Better yet, keyless ignition. I love ours.

On 8/1/2015 1:24 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>>> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag
>>> thing was not intentionally ignored. ...
>>
>> Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
>> malfeasance...
>
> That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
> make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
> then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
> they're not the same.
>
> John
>

Pomatoes, Topatoes

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
> motors in stock,

LOL.

> While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how
> much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased
> by this, and what the side effects will be.

I beleive the expectation is to go from ~75% efficient (mechanical
power out / electrical power in) to ~80%.

> Generally speaking
> "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I
> suspect we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose
> motors" to go up.

That is likely to be the case, since a big part of improving
efficiency is reducing resistive losses, and the way to do
that is thicker copper wiring.

Another issue is that the higher efficiency motors are likely
to be larger than the current ones, so manufacturers may have
to redesign their mountings. (which may also be a problem for
anyone replacing a bad motor in an older tool).

> Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with
> increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's
> specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new
> general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can
> expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity.

Probably across the board. A run capacitor improves the motor's
power factor, which reduces resistive losses. So it's a big
help in improving efficiency.

Note that improving efficiency means less electrical energy is
lost as heat, so capacitor lifetime may improve.

BTW, before a political debate starts on this, it should be
noted that the legislation requiring the high efficiency
motors dates to the GW Bush administration.

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/31/2015 10:32 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>
>>> On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

>>>> Can the Chinese meet the new standards?

>>> The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make
>>> such a simple change to meet this standard?
>>
>> The same reason they don't seem to be able to keep lead out of toys?
>
> Well they would if the importers specified that. We get from China
> what our importers specify. If we leave the specifications of the
> paint up to the manufacturer, regardless of where the manufacturer is,
> they are going to use what they want and that is typically going to be
> the cheapest.

It's less a case of the importers not specifying, as it is
the importers being unable or unwilling to verify their
specs are met. The Chinese know that most of what they make
isn't tested for compliance, and a lot of them are willing
to take a chance on using whatever's cheap, whether it mets
spec or not.

This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We
get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get
melamine in baby formula.

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/31/2015 12:38 PM, John McCoy wrote:

>> This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We
>> get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get
>> melamine in baby formula.
>
> We get defective air bags from Japan. Countless recalls on tainted
> meats and vegetables. Thank you Blue Bell.

A little bit of apples and oranges there. The ones you list
weren't intentional (at least, as far as anyone knows). The
melamine, and other incidents of adulterated foods in China,
were purposefully done.

John

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:

>> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag
>> thing was not intentionally ignored. ...
>
> Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
> malfeasance...

That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
they're not the same.

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Pomatoes, Topatoes

Pomelos?

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air
>> >> bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ...
>> >
>> > Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
>> > malfeasance...
>>
>> That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
>> make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
>> then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
>> they're not the same.
>>
>> John
>
> How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long
> tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't
> discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on
> issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to
> be recalled".

Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag
thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow.

One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take
the GM ignition switch case.

John

phorbin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I don't know nuthin about this but
>
> http://www.leeson.com/TechnicalInformation/sphase.html

From an electrical engineering perspective, that article is
wrong (and it shows how guys like Lew can get confused on
the subject).

All of the motor designs shown there, except for the shaded
pole motor, are split-phase motors. Any single phase motor
with a starting or auxilliary winding is a split-phase motor,
because the phase of the starting/auxilliary winding is not
the same as the main winding. That's why they're called
split-phase motors, because they have two windings with
different phases.

John

krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:lsmhsah7vnp9eh2vp4utnonsv59pb7ai3m@
4ax.com:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:53:43 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>phorbin <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I don't know nuthin about this but
>>>
>>> http://www.leeson.com/TechnicalInformation/sphase.html
>>
>>From an electrical engineering perspective, that article is
>>wrong (and it shows how guys like Lew can get confused on
>>the subject).
>>
>>All of the motor designs shown there, except for the shaded
>>pole motor, are split-phase motors. Any single phase motor
>>with a starting or auxilliary winding is a split-phase motor,
>>because the phase of the starting/auxilliary winding is not
>>the same as the main winding. That's why they're called
>>split-phase motors, because they have two windings with
>>different phases.
>>
> Actually, the shaded pole motor is also a split phase motor. The
> shading coil is the other phase. ;-)

Well, in a sense that's correct, altho by extension that
definition would mean all single phase motors are split-phase,
since you have to have something offset from line phase or
they'll never start rotating. It's not the most useful
definition :-)

In engineering practice, tho, split-phase means split off
from the line, as opposed to being induced (as is the case
for the shaded pole motor).

John

On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
>> is the problem.
>
> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
> arranged--unless something comes loose internally

That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
are to go after any thing that moves.




and that would see to
> have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
> "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
> engineering root-cause analysis.
>
> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
> operator for doing something silly.

Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.

But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
have opened it with a kitchen can opener.

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 20:05:50 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>
>> Grainger description:
>>
>> General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
>> Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
>----------------------------------------------------------
>> Capacitor-Start is not split phase.
>>
>> Nice try but no cigar.
>--------------------------------------------------
>"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_motor#Split-phase_motor
>
>> Lew has been told this over and over again and he insists on
>> swimming
>> with the crocodiles.
>------------------------------------------------
>You can start with a split-phase design and then add a capicator BUT
>you no longer have a split phase motor, you have a capacitor start
>motor.
>
Wrong. A capacitor-start motor is just a special case of a
split-phase motor. There are a few ways to split the phase but a
different method doesn't mean that the phase isn't split.

>

On 8/2/2015 5:01 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
>>>>>>>> is the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
>>>>>>> arranged--unless something comes loose internally
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
>>>>>> rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
>>>>>> The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
>>>>>> everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
>>>>>> could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
>>>>>> I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
>>>>>> society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
>>>>>> are to go after any thing that moves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and that would see to
>>>>>>> have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
>>>>>>> "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
>>>>>>> engineering root-cause analysis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
>>>>>>> operator for doing something silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
>>>>>> know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
>>>>>> from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
>>>>>> they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
>>>>>> Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
>>>>>> that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
>>>>>> like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
>>>>>> it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
>>>>>> because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
>>>>>> appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
>>>>>> originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
>>>>>> have opened it with a kitchen can opener.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
>>>>> turned off the airbags are turned off.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
>>>> bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
>>>> vehicles had them.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
>>> itself off, that's a bad situation.
>>
>> It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
>>> line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
>>> intentionally turns it off.
>>>
>> Well shit happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.
>
> If someone you care about ends up dead as a result of this, get back to
> us on how excusable GM's incompetence is.
>
> Why are you defending them, anyway, is it a knee-jerk reaction of a
> former employee or something?
>

I'm not defending them at all. I'm just saying that of all the
accidents that have been blamed on the ignition switch many turn out to
not be related to the switch. I assure you many many more people have
had accidents that were not caused by the switch however that does not
prevent an attorney from going after every hint of an accident.
I am clueless of how many are actually caused by the switch compared to
how many had nothing to do with the switch but I would bet you the
later overwhelms the former.
You are simply buying into the hype. I personally dealt with a lot of
these type cases for most of the 80's. Every time there was an accident
after a publicized recall, attorneys, insurance companies, and factory
reps had to inspect the vehicle before any repairs were made by our
dealership. Very seldom did that amount to anything other than the
insurance company paying for the repair.

On 8/1/2015 3:18 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air
>>>>> bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ...
>>>>
>>>> Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
>>>> malfeasance...
>>>
>>> That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
>>> make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
>>> then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
>>> they're not the same.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long
>> tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't
>> discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on
>> issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to
>> be recalled".
>
> Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag
> thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow.
>
> One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take
> the GM ignition switch case.

Exactly and as I was reading today, the gas tanks on the Ford Pinto. I
knew about the Pinto tanks but learned today that they only needed to
add a $1 part during manufacture to make the tanks safer. Ford chose to
not do that for several years.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/10-cars-that-were-just-too-dangerous-to-drive.html/5/

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:07:37 PM UTC-7, dpb wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

> > The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
> > automaker... manage to screw up a damned _switch_?

> I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in
> the switch than any of the other GMs.

As I heard it, a fix was implemented, but the documentation of the fix
was never filed: a mix of good and bad parts were in stock, with no
stock-number difference. So, your switch MIGHT be just fine.

Ford investigated the switch thoroughly by taking an example from the
(new, good-design) stock, and cleared it. That's why it took so long;
a used-part example in bad-design had to be located and identified.

On 7/31/2015 10:32 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
>>> motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
>>>
>>> <http://www.grainger.com/content/motors-legislation?cm_re=CS_Banner-_-
>>> General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616>
>>>
>>> While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how
>>> much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased
>>> by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking
>>> "increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect
>>> we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go
>>> up.
>>>
>>> Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a
>>> defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor
>>> manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things.
>>
>> The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make such
>> a simple change to meet this standard?
>
> The same reason they don't seem to be able to keep lead out of toys?

Well they would if the importers specified that. We get from China what
our importers specify. If we leave the specifications of the paint up
to the manufacturer, regardless of where the manufacturer is, they are
going to use what they want and that is typically going to be the cheapest.




>
>> I highly suspect that because the companies, like most any brand of tool
>> that is built there and sold here, dictate the specifications of the
>> product and that a simple change in the motor will not be any kind of
>> issue at all.
>

On 8/1/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air
>>>>>> bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
>>>>> malfeasance...
>>>>
>>>> That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
>>>> make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
>>>> then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
>>>> they're not the same.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>> How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long
>>> tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't
>>> discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on
>>> issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to
>>> be recalled".
>>
>> Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag
>> thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow.
>>
>> One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take
>> the GM ignition switch case.
>
> The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
> automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
> in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?
>
Having been the service sales manager for a large Oldsmobile dealership
in the mid 80's and exclusively sold GM parts for many years, they
weigh the cost of litigation vs. the cost to make it right.
Year after year after year you sell the same part that fits nearly every
model of GM vehicle and they never improve it.

On 7/31/2015 12:38 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/31/2015 10:32 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>
>>>> On 7/31/2015 6:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>>>> Can the Chinese meet the new standards?
>
>>>> The Chinese are in outer space, why would they not be able to make
>>>> such a simple change to meet this standard?
>>>
>>> The same reason they don't seem to be able to keep lead out of toys?
>>
>> Well they would if the importers specified that. We get from China
>> what our importers specify. If we leave the specifications of the
>> paint up to the manufacturer, regardless of where the manufacturer is,
>> they are going to use what they want and that is typically going to be
>> the cheapest.
>
> It's less a case of the importers not specifying, as it is
> the importers being unable or unwilling to verify their
> specs are met. The Chinese know that most of what they make
> isn't tested for compliance, and a lot of them are willing
> to take a chance on using whatever's cheap, whether it mets
> spec or not.

Which is business 101 for any company anywhere. If no specifications
are requested they use what it takes to get the bid. China offers cheap
labor and importers go for that. If the truth were to be known the air
quality from off gassing of products at the Harbor Freight stores might
be more dangerous than eating lead. ;~)

>
> This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We
> get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get
> melamine in baby formula.

We get defective air bags from Japan. Countless recalls on tainted
meats and vegetables. Thank you Blue Bell.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:53:43 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>phorbin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I don't know nuthin about this but
>>
>> http://www.leeson.com/TechnicalInformation/sphase.html
>
>From an electrical engineering perspective, that article is
>wrong (and it shows how guys like Lew can get confused on
>the subject).
>
>All of the motor designs shown there, except for the shaded
>pole motor, are split-phase motors. Any single phase motor
>with a starting or auxilliary winding is a split-phase motor,
>because the phase of the starting/auxilliary winding is not
>the same as the main winding. That's why they're called
>split-phase motors, because they have two windings with
>different phases.
>
Actually, the shaded pole motor is also a split phase motor. The
shading coil is the other phase. ;-)

On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/1/2015 9:09 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/31/2015 12:38 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>
>>>> This is a bigger problem for the Chinese than us, tho. We
>>>> get an infinitesimal amount of lead in some toys. They get
>>>> melamine in baby formula.
>>>
>>> We get defective air bags from Japan. Countless recalls on tainted
>>> meats and vegetables. Thank you Blue Bell.
>>
>> A little bit of apples and oranges there. The ones you list
>> weren't intentional (at least, as far as anyone knows). The
>> melamine, and other incidents of adulterated foods in China,
>> were purposefully done.
>>
>> John
>>
> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air bag
> thing was not intentionally ignored. ...

Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
malfeasance...but I don't know that there was sufficient evidence that
testing of new units would've uncovered the issue as, at least as I
understand the scenario, it took time before the changes in internal
composition of the detonators would cause the resultant damage whereas a
new-condition unit did not.

According to the last report I looked at in June at the ASQC (Amer Soc
for Quality Control, a professional org for QC to which besides Amer
Statistical Assoc I was member for 30+ yr so even retired I still read
stuff), Takata still hasn't been able to fully determine an actual root
cause.

--

On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
...

> The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
> automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
> in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?

Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the
ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the
key to change positions.

I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in
the switch than any of the other GMs.

--

On 08/01/2015 5:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
>>> automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
>>> in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?
>>
>> Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the
>> ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the
>> key to change positions.
>
> Because it does not do so on a Volvo, a Jeep, a Lincoln, or anything
> else except certain GM models.
>
> And it's not a matter of "complaining", it's a matter of BEING DEAD.
>
>> I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in
>> the switch than any of the other GMs.
>
> You may have lucked out and gotten the better end of the manufacturing
> tolerances.

I don't believe that--I think it's "operator error" in this case...

--

On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
...

> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
> is the problem.

Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
arranged--unless something comes loose internally and that would see to
have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
"turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
engineering root-cause analysis.

I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
operator for doing something silly.

--

dpb wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
>> is the problem.
>
> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
> arranged--unless something comes loose internally and that would see
> to have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press
> reports, "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly
> isn't an engineering root-cause analysis.
>
> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
> operator for doing something silly.

Well, we can all chose which side we want to fall on, but too many engineers
(including GM's own engineers) have pointed out this problem ove rmany
years. Besides that - people owning other cars do not suffer the same
problem. People behave in a consistent manner and you can't suggest that
Ford, or Toyota, or Honda owners behave differently than GM owners do. This
is a long known problem with GM ignitions - going back nearly 20 years.
It's just flat out been a long known problem with their ignitions. But like
all things GM - ignore it and continue to produce the defective product.
Think about the albatross that was the 60 degree engine wet intake manifold
gasket...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>>
>>>> While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start
>>>> split-phase
>>>> motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> Have a model number, price and availability?
>>
>> 5K922, 363.50, if ordered now expected to arrive August 4.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Grainger description:
>
> General Purpose Motor1 HPCapacitor-Start, 1725 Nameplate RPM,
> Voltage 115/208-230, Frame 56
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Capacitor-Start is not split phase.
>
> Nice try but no cigar.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_motor#Split-phase_motor

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>While I was confirming that Grainger has capacitor-start split-phase
>motors in stock, I came upon this gem:
>
><http://www.grainger.com/content/motors-legislation?cm_re=CS_Banner-_-
>General_Purpose_AC_Motors_L2-_-Motors_legislation_20150616>
>
>While "more efficiency" is a good thing, I find myself wondering how
>much the average efficiency of small motors will actually be increased
>by this, and what the side effects will be. Generally speaking
>"increased efficiency" translates to "costs more up front" so I suspect
>we can expect the prices of tools using "general purpose motors" to go
>up.

In general, all it takes for higher efficiency is more copper and
iron. This isn't anything new and is just a matter of cost. For
something like a power tool, it's a complete waste of money (but it's
the government's job, anymore, to spend other people's money).

>Can the Chinese meet the new standards? If not then this might be a
>defacto ban on Chinese motors, which would be good for American motor
>manufacturers but also mean price increases on all sorts of things.

Why would they have a problem. High-efficiency motors have been with
us pretty much since motors were invented. It's all a matter of
trading off cost and weight vs. efficiency.

>Then there's a little detail--"Run capacitor provides winding with
>increased energy to help improve efficiency". I don't know if that's
>specific to Dayton or if it's across the board--if so, if all new
>general purpose motors are required to be capacitor-run, then we can
>expect to have to replace those capacitors with some regularity.

Capacitor life is more about temperature than anything else. Higher
efficiency should help.

On 8/2/2015 11:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 8/2/2015 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
>>> @swbelldotnet says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/1/2015 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>>> On 08/01/2015 5:44 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... It may not actually be the part you see, the lock, that
>>>>>> is the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has to be; that's what initiates the motion however the internals are
>>>>> arranged--unless something comes loose internally
>>>>
>>>> That was where I was going with that. We did sell ignition switches,
>>>> rack assemblies, and locks way back when due to something wearing out.
>>>> The expensive part was the labor and it was just as easy to replace
>>>> everything while in there. There were about 5 separate pieces that
>>>> could all contribute to the sloppiness of the works.
>>>> I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with how much less tolerance our
>>>> society has for things wearing out these days and how happy attorneys
>>>> are to go after any thing that moves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and that would see to
>>>>> have no real bearing on the weight and what is, by all press reports,
>>>>> "turning off" the ignition. Then again, the press certainly isn't an
>>>>> engineering root-cause analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still on GM's side on this one basically as being the fault of the
>>>>> operator for doing something silly.
>>>>
>>>> Well I will agree that GM is probably not totally at fault. One should
>>>> know how to safely control a vehicle if the engine dies, whether it be
>>>> from a bad switch/lock or running out of fuel.
>>>>
>>>> But having said that GM is not innocent on countless other things that
>>>> they could have easily corrected over the years but chose not to do so.
>>>> Take part number 10000669 for instance. This was a reserve vacuum tank
>>>> that served to assist opening ventilation diverted motors. It looked
>>>> like a black plastic soft ball sized ball with vacuum tubes running to
>>>> it. We sold hundreds per year. It had no moving parts and yet went bad
>>>> because of the cheapness of the materials. Ford, OTOH used what
>>>> appeared to be a black tin can. That part literally looked like it may
>>>> originally have been used to hold a vegetable in your pantry. You could
>>>> have opened it with a kitchen can opener.
>>>
>>> It's not just "safely controlling the vehicle". When the switch is
>>> turned off the airbags are turned off.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, but if you can control the vehicle, maybe you don't need the air
>> bags and air bags are something new, not too many years ago not all
>> vehicles had them.
>
> Irrelevant--if the airbag is off because the ignition switch turned
> itself off, that's a bad situation.

It could be if there is an accident but not if no accident.


>
> Look, you can argue coulda-shoulda-woulda all you want to, the bottom
> line is that the damned switch should stay on until somebody
> intentionally turns it off.
>
Well shit happens, and only one thing in this world is perfect.

On 8/1/2015 5:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 8/1/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 08/01/2015 12:26 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually one would have to be pretty naive to think that the air
>>>>>>>> bag thing was not intentionally ignored. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Being ignored after the fact is far different than deliberate
>>>>>>> malfeasance...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be my thought too. It's one thing to intentionally
>>>>>> make a defective product, it's another to do it accidently and
>>>>>> then say "how can we cover this up". Neither is good, but
>>>>>> they're not the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> How about the case of "well, we found out that after aging for a long
>>>>> tome a few of these deteriorate in a dangerous way but we can't
>>>>> discern any kind of pattern to it so maybe we should hold off on
>>>>> issuing a recall until we can figure out more precisely what needs to
>>>>> be recalled".
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I don't know if at this point we can say the airbag
>>>> thing was being rightfully cautious or unwarrantably slow.
>>>>
>>>> One can find plenty of less ambiguous examples, tho. Take
>>>> the GM ignition switch case.
>>>
>>> The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
>>> automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
>>> in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?
>>>
>> Having been the service sales manager for a large Oldsmobile dealership
>> in the mid 80's and exclusively sold GM parts for many years, they
>> weigh the cost of litigation vs. the cost to make it right.
>> Year after year after year you sell the same part that fits nearly every
>> model of GM vehicle and they never improve it.
>
> This wasn't a part that had been in uses since the '50s though, it was a
> design that was new around 2002.
>

What difference would the time period make? FWIW those parts I was
talking about were around from the late 70's to at least the mid 90's.

On 8/1/2015 5:07 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
>
>> The ignition switch case kind of bugs me--how does the world's largest
>> automaker, with at that point nearly a century of corporate experience
>> in such matters, manage to screw up a damned _switch_?
>
> Why does anybody put a pound of crap on the key ring besides the
> ignition key and then complain if it has sufficient weight to cause the
> key to change positions.
>
> I've a vehicle that's on the recall list and I see no real difference in
> the switch than any of the other GMs.

It is odd how that falls in place to cause a problem, unless the detents
in the switch it self prematurely wear out because of the rocking motion
of the keys on the lock.

The ignition lock turns more freely out of the steering column than when
mounted in the column. You feel more resistance when it is all
assembled properly.

On GM vehicles what you put the key in is the ignition "lock". On the
opposite end of the lock was a rack and pinion and rod. The gear on the
lock moved the rack and rod back and forth inside and along part of the
length of the steering column. The end of that rod connected to the
ignition switch. It may not actually be the part you see, the lock,
that is the problem.