Sorry if I mis-lead... a little quick on the trigger this morning... -- hopefully in another 500k or so when I'm shopping again I can find a 1/2 ton hybrid -- maybe with a small soya-eating diesel to charge the batteries -- guess I'll have to give up the clutch though... -----Original Message----- From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:25 AM To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Ian Hanna Subject: Re: [TN] NTC RoHS compliant laptop with early failure Sorry, it's not lead-acid but nickel-metal hydride and it weighs about 28 kg! In fact, it is remarkably small. I haven't measured it but my visual memory says about 35 x 45 x 8 cm and that will pack enough oomph to do its job. It works at 156 V and packs about 1 kWh, which doesn't seem much, but will provide up to an extra 30 HP when needed for several minutes, and recharges just as fast by regen braking. Brian Ian Hanna wrote: > A 'lead-free' hybrid -- great, we save 12oz of nice reliable > solder-joint, but gain 300lbs of lead-acid battery? Not that I'm > opposed to hybrids -- if I could get my Tacoma bio-diesel/electric I'd > be all over that -- but the 'lead-free' bit made me think... > > -----Original Message----- > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:21 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [TN] NTC RoHS compliant laptop with early failure > > After many, many, many months of waiting, I shall take delivery of a > hybrid car tomorrow. It is absolutely stuffed with electronics (at the > last count, believe it or not, 237 microprocessors in it to control > everything down to the way it responds to how you breathe (almost!). > Being made in Japan, I imagine that it is all lead-free. > > If a laptop with three microprocessors (CPU, GPU and HDDPU) fails after, > > say, 24 hours of use, this means that my brand new car should fail after > > 24*3/237 hours = 18 minutes. That means I cannot make it into any of the > > surrounding towns without having to call for help. Now, dare I suggest > that a car suffers more climatic, vibration and shock extremes than a > laptop? Hopefully, it will not break down every 15 (or even 30) minutes > so what's the difference? May I suggest that there are several factors: > - the car is designed for the intended purpose: the laptop is designed > for minimal cost in a highly competitive market > - the car designers are aware that if the drivers get killed, they > cannot expect them to replace their car after n years: the laptop > designer of brand X is not worried if, next time round, he buys brand Y > because he knows tha the user of Brand Z will buy brand X next time > round, so the future of brands X, Y and Z are all cyclically assured, > deaths of the users being unlikely > - cooling of laptops is hairy: fans reduce battery life and their grill > is often blocked by the clothing on the lap of the unfortunate owner. > Critical electronics in cars are always positioned where cooling is > adequate: thermal design is a known factor (in laptops, the cooling fan > is placed where there is a little space left over, in the hopes that 5% > of the air may reach hot components, if you are lucky) > - etc.? > > If you don't hear from me tomorrow, it may be because I'm waiting at the > > side of the road for help during my 40 minute drive back from the > showroom. > > Brian > > Ian Hanna wrote: >> I went shovel shopping last week -- there were three >> >> A beautiful resin handled, tempered steel, rolled edges with tack > welds >> and reinforcement at the stress points and seams for $39 >> A hardwood handled, hickory, one of similar quality for $29 >> And an unpriced chineese model -- inferior wood handle, much more >> roughly shaped, with a wide grain -- stamped steel, no welds, no >> reinforcement... >> >> -- did a price check to compare -- it was $6.99 -- if I used a shovel >> every day I would invest, but for digging rocks now and then from my >> road -- I couldn't justify the $20-$30 difference... >> >> -- I am ashamed, but that is the current reality >> >> I fear soon there will be less shovel selection, I am a more > discerning >> shopper than most, and a professional 'quality guy' and still -- > price >> influences me >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bev Christian >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:53 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [TN] RoHS compliant laptop with early failure >> >> George, >> As usual, I am in total agreement with you. >> Bev >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wenger, George M. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:51 AM >> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Bev Christian >> Subject: RE: [TN] RoHS compliant laptop with early failure >> >> Bev, >> >> To add to your comment, I'm more convinced than ever that "quality is >> dead". Given three factors 1). Quality, 2). Cost 3). Delivery. >> Customers can choose any two but not three. Even companies like my > old >> company (Lucent Technologies / Bell Laboratories) that changed from >> being technology driven to supply change driven are now more worried >> about cost and delivery. They may still be concerned about quality > but >> when their customers want the products "NOW" and they want them for > "AS >> CHEAP AS POSSIBLE" then quality has to suffer. >> >> >> Regards, >> George >> George M. Wenger >> Senior Principle FMA / Reliability Engineer >> Wireless network Solutions >> Andrew Corporation, 40 Technology Drive, Warren, NJ 07059 (908) > 546-4531 >> [log in to unmask] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bev Christian >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:34 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [TN] RoHS compliant laptop with early failure >> >> A man I respect in the industry on these matters said (and this > applies >> to more than electronics), that "quality is dead". Remember the > mantra >> is "smaller, cheaper, faster" or some such. In the late nineties they >> said "quality is of course assumed", but I think that has gone out the >> window now, in the general sense. >> Bev >> RIM >> >> The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily >> represent those of the company that I work for. (And I am making no >> inferences one way or the other about our own products.) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wolfe, Robert >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:27 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [TN] RoHS compliant laptop with early failure >> >> Joe, >> Just a thought without any real data (but sure has me wondering >> slightly). >> EVERY single piece of electronic equipment I've purchased within the >> last year has either failed almost out of the box or soon after. >> This includes 2 notebook computers, a PA Amp, 3 cell phones, a > wireless >> phone, an all-in-one printer. >> Now yes like many have stated here with out data there is no case and >> there are many reasons that could be the problem, and may not have >> anything to do with RoHS. >> But from a John Q. Public buyer standpoint was I jinxed this last year >> were the odds not all in my favor, could be but certainly has me >> wondering why 100% of what I bought electronically never had problems >> till this past year everything had a problem (100%)??? >> >From my point of view I was starting to think maybe don't buy any >> electronics for awhile? >> Especially since the practice of many companies is, even if your unit >> failed in only 3 months, you might get a refurbished unit that is much >> older back. >> Yes they guarantee it is in perfect working order again, but just my >> opinion, if the unit breaks in the first 90 days you should get a > brand >> new replacement. >> Bob >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Hudson >> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 1:02 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [TN] RoHS compliant laptop with early failure >> >> I would suggest that it belies your undoubted professional expertise > to >> make the assumption that this failure has anything to do with >> RoHS-compliance or lead-free. Frankly, it smacks of hysteria. Surely > you >> can think of at least a dozen other potential failure modes, all > equally >> likely? Let's see some evidence in this case before you throw your > toys >> out of the playpen. >> >> Dave > > --------------------------------------------------- > Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0 > To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text > in > the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet > To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to > [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) > To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to > [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest > Search the archives of previous posts at: > http://listserv.ipc.org/archives > Please visit IPC web site > http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional > information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 > ext.2815 > ----------------------------------------------------- > > --------------------------------------------------- > Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0 > To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in > the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet > To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) > To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest > Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives > Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815 > ----------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------- Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0 To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815 -----------------------------------------------------