On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:37:49 -0400, wrote:



I asked the repair guy about this


repair guys.
When I last installed a washer and dryer, the dryer door swing was not
a good solution. I changed the door swing by putting the hinges on
the left side using the place for them. The door now swings toward the
wall so no need to reach over the door to remove clothes.
Some time later, testing a repair guy in appliance repair, I asked if
the door swing could be changed --- No, he said, not knowing a had
already changed it.
(P.S. I delivered and installed appliances as a teen.)


Today, the only common make of washer that has a
reversable door is Electrolux .
The $ 2800 Huebsch had the door opening
"the wrong way " from every other machine ..
John T.

I was saying a dryer. Some appliances still allow a change in door
swing direction.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:37:49 -0400, wrote:



I asked the repair guy about this


repair guys.
When I last installed a washer and dryer, the dryer door swing was not
a good solution. I changed the door swing by putting the hinges on
the left side using the place for them. The door now swings toward the
wall so no need to reach over the door to remove clothes.
Some time later, testing a repair guy in appliance repair, I asked if
the door swing could be changed --- No, he said, not knowing a had
already changed it.
(P.S. I delivered and installed appliances as a teen.)


Today, the only common make of washer that has a
reversable door is Electrolux .
The $ 2800 Huebsch had the door opening
"the wrong way " from every other machine ..
John T.

I've heard that Speed Queen makes a good front loader.

"trader_4" wrote in message

stuff snipped

The new ones use substantially less water per load and also less
electric energy than the old ones. I doubt most people would
ever recover the increased cost, both upfront and for possible
repairs. And as you've noted, there are other disadvantages,
like the substantially longer wash cycle times. But if you're
a tree hugging hippie and it makes you feel good, then there's
that.

There are significantly reduced costs to society in general when you
conserve both water and electricity. The ROI calculations for even simple
things like washing machines get muddy very quickly. I wonder how low
income people will fare now that the entry level HE washer is headed into
price stratosphere. I *really* love my old top loader now because we do a
LOT of pre-soaking and some pretty big loads.

I was have an argument with a tree hugger who believed in recycling every
last atom of *potentially* recyclable material.

I pointed out that the assumptions many recyclists are old, outdated and
were perhaps never valid to begin with. No sale. Recycling is good.

I noted that China no longer buys anywhere near the scrap material
(especially paper) they used to, drastically changing the cost equations.
No sale. Recycling is good.

I pointed out that recycling involves putting lots more carbon dioxide in
the air than using landfills and requires water to rinse out plastic
containers. No sale. Recycling is good.

At least this time they countered by saying we're running out of landfill
space. I replied: Ever fly coast to coast at night? We're not running out
of nowhere any time soon. We might have to build some tracks or a highway
to reach it, but wherever those two go, business development surely follows.
Still no sale. Recycling is good.

My conclusion is that recycling has been tattooed on their brain and it's
part of being a good, conscientious liberal EVEN IF it means junking up the
atmosphere in a way previous models never considered. Recycling seems like
the ideal *voluntary* program but I know that each year my property taxes
pay an ever-growing fee for it.

I am not a anti-recycle monster. I recycle cans, batteries, CFLs and keep
other toxic stuff out of the trash stream. However, when it comes to
wasting *any* of my time deciding whether a pizza box is or is not
recyclable leads me to: "Trash it all, let Nature sort it out." So far, I
have eluded the recycling police (but not my liberal friend who felt
empowered enough to sort my kitchen trash for me while my wife is away.
Really! )

The fear of landfills really gets me. Any civil engineers out there know if
it's anywhere near as nasty a process as "tree huggers" make it out to be?
I recall reading that now they mix semi-processed trash with some sort of
recovered cement dust to make it more suitable for coastal landfills and
ones in earthquake zones. IIRC, San Franciso's landfilled seafront didn't
fare too well in a recent earthquake.

--
Bobby G.

On 4/15/2016 5:22 PM, Robert Green wrote:

I am not a anti-recycle monster. I recycle cans, batteries, CFLs and keep
other toxic stuff out of the trash stream. However, when it comes to
wasting *any* of my time deciding whether a pizza box is or is not
recyclable leads me to: "Trash it all, let Nature sort it out." So far, I
have eluded the recycling police (but not my liberal friend who felt
empowered enough to sort my kitchen trash for me while my wife is away.
Really! )

The "Corporate" nature of modern recycling makes little sense.
"Let's *pay* to save stuff".

When I was a kid, we used to recycle newspaper and glass -- by
dropping it off at a "lot" set aside by the town for that
purpose. Volunteers would load the BALED newspaper into a
semi trailer parked on the lot.

There were three concrete walled "pens" for white, green and brown glass.
Folks could drop off paper trash bags (they hadn't invented plastic ones)
of presorted glass by these pens and volunteers would empty the bags
on the growing mountains of glass.

Folks who were more "interested" in an opportunity to throw glass bottles
at a concrete wall WITH IMPUNITY would elect to empty their own bags! :

The fear of landfills really gets me. Any civil engineers out there know if
it's anywhere near as nasty a process as "tree huggers" make it out to be?
I recall reading that now they mix semi-processed trash with some sort of
recovered cement dust to make it more suitable for coastal landfills and
ones in earthquake zones. IIRC, San Franciso's landfilled seafront didn't
fare too well in a recent earthquake.

The problem with most landfills is they are too close in and eventually
become developed land. The city is currently addressing a problem
related to trying to support a bridge on land that had previously been
a landfill. The "soil" isn't strong enough to support the load and,
as a result, pilings must be driven much deeper through the accumulated
trash.

Recycling shouldn't be addressed AS "recycling" but, rather, as
a multitude of reuse/reclamation techniques -- and each evaluated
with respect to the cost of that activity vs. the potential
gains from it.

If you can divert an item from a landfill (or incinerator) and
reuse it "as is", there is high value for little cost. If you
can invest a small amount (time/money) and reuse or repurpose,
then you similarly achieve worthwhile results.

[I've probably WITHHELD $40-50K from the economy over the past
decade simply by rescuing, repurposing and reusing items that
would otherwise be buried under a layer of soil!]

It costs very little to pull an aluminum or copper heat sink off
a CPU and toss it in a barrel. Then, haul that barrel to a
firm that will pay you for that (reasonably) clean metal.

OTOH, tossing the computer that HAD that heatsink in it into
the trash -- or, to a recycler -- adds lots of cost to extract
that chunk of metal.

Apparently, aluminum cans are relatively easy to recycle. Yet,
the local munis do NOT want it in the "unsorted recyclables"
that they (pay someone!) to pick up at curbside, each week.
OTOH, they are happy to accept "tin" cans, paper, plastics,
etc.

frown Clearly, someone needs to start counting beans before
making "feel good" policy.

On 4/15/2016 8:22 PM, Robert Green wrote:


I pointed out that recycling involves putting lots more carbon dioxide in
the air than using landfills and requires water to rinse out plastic
containers. No sale. Recycling is good.

At least this time they countered by saying we're running out of landfill
space. I replied: Ever fly coast to coast at night? We're not running out
of nowhere any time soon. We might have to build some tracks or a highway
to reach it, but wherever those two go, business development surely follows.
Still no sale. Recycling is good.

My conclusion is that recycling has been tattooed on their brain and it's
part of being a good, conscientious liberal EVEN IF it means junking up the
atmosphere in a way previous models never considered.


Recycling is good if done properly. At work we take foam plastic and
recycle it. A local appliance dealer gives us a bunch of it about once
a month. And we also get people coming by to drop off 8 ounces of
plastic and are driving a big '65 Caddy getting 6 mpg.

Trash to energy can be done cleanly too.

emphasis should be on making durable long lasting appliances etc.....

the current build it as heap as possible so we can sell a new one.

should be make it very durable, so it will last a long time and be easily repairable.

this would cut the trash stream..........

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 4/15/2016 5:22 PM, Robert Green wrote:

I am not a anti-recycle monster. I recycle cans, batteries, CFLs and keep
other toxic stuff out of the trash stream. However, when it comes to
wasting *any* of my time deciding whether a pizza box is or is not
recyclable leads me to: "Trash it all, let Nature sort it out." So far, I
have eluded the recycling police (but not my liberal friend who felt
empowered enough to sort my kitchen trash for me while my wife is away.
Really! )

The "Corporate" nature of modern recycling makes little sense.
"Let's *pay* to save stuff".

When I was a kid, we used to recycle newspaper and glass -- by
dropping it off at a "lot" set aside by the town for that
purpose. Volunteers would load the BALED newspaper into a
semi trailer parked on the lot.

There were three concrete walled "pens" for white, green and brown glass.
Folks could drop off paper trash bags (they hadn't invented plastic ones)
of presorted glass by these pens and volunteers would empty the bags
on the growing mountains of glass.

Folks who were more "interested" in an opportunity to throw glass bottles
at a concrete wall WITH IMPUNITY would elect to empty their own bags! :

The fear of landfills really gets me. Any civil engineers out there know if
it's anywhere near as nasty a process as "tree huggers" make it out to be?
I recall reading that now they mix semi-processed trash with some sort of
recovered cement dust to make it more suitable for coastal landfills and
ones in earthquake zones. IIRC, San Franciso's landfilled seafront didn't
fare too well in a recent earthquake.

The problem with most landfills is they are too close in and eventually
become developed land.

Containing the toxic soup forever so that it doesn't enter the
groundwater, aquifers, etc, wherever it winds up is really the
main problem.


The city is currently addressing a problem
related to trying to support a bridge on land that had previously been
a landfill. The "soil" isn't strong enough to support the load and,
as a result, pilings must be driven much deeper through the accumulated
trash.

Recycling shouldn't be addressed AS "recycling" but, rather, as
a multitude of reuse/reclamation techniques -- and each evaluated
with respect to the cost of that activity vs. the potential
gains from it.


Presumably that is part of the process and decision on what to do
with trash. Putting it in a landfill isn't cheap, especially if you
have to haul it away from civilization. I think most municipalities
are considering the cost of putting it all in a landfill vs recycling
a lot of it. We've been recycling here for decades now and it's greatly
extended the life of the landfill and it's been done on the basis of
minimizing cost.



If you can divert an item from a landfill (or incinerator) and
reuse it "as is", there is high value for little cost. If you
can invest a small amount (time/money) and reuse or repurpose,
then you similarly achieve worthwhile results.

[I've probably WITHHELD $40-50K from the economy over the past
decade simply by rescuing, repurposing and reusing items that
would otherwise be buried under a layer of soil!]

It costs very little to pull an aluminum or copper heat sink off
a CPU and toss it in a barrel. Then, haul that barrel to a
firm that will pay you for that (reasonably) clean metal.

OTOH, tossing the computer that HAD that heatsink in it into
the trash -- or, to a recycler -- adds lots of cost to extract
that chunk of metal.

Apparently, aluminum cans are relatively easy to recycle. Yet,
the local munis do NOT want it in the "unsorted recyclables"
that they (pay someone!) to pick up at curbside, each week.
OTOH, they are happy to accept "tin" cans, paper, plastics,
etc.


What is done varies by area. Here bottles, cans, plastics, cardboard,
and paper all go into one stream. Regular garbage is another.



frown Clearly, someone needs to start counting beans before
making "feel good" policy.

I think in most cases they do, and in general recycling typical household
stuff works out economically, but I'm sure there are places doing some
things that don't work out economically.

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 7:45:46 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
emphasis should be on making durable long lasting appliances etc.....

the current build it as heap as possible so we can sell a new one.

should be make it very durable, so it will last a long time and be easily repairable.

this would cut the trash stream..........

Do most people want appliances that last a lifetime and are they willing
to pay the increased cost for them? I don't. I have no complaints
as to the longevity of any appliances that I've bought. Only exception
would be a fairly expensive Sony LCD TV that I bought that only lasted
about 5 years.

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 9:05:13 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 7:45:46 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
emphasis should be on making durable long lasting appliances etc.....

the current build it as heap as possible so we can sell a new one.

should be make it very durable, so it will last a long time and be easily repairable.

this would cut the trash stream..........

Do most people want appliances that last a lifetime and are they willing
to pay the increased cost for them? I don't. I have no complaints
as to the longevity of any appliances that I've bought. Only exception
would be a fairly expensive Sony LCD TV that I bought that only lasted
about 5 years.

there are 2 expenses to consider.

the cost to buy the whatever.....

the cost to build, ship, recucle the cheap model vs a long term long lived item

the lifetime costs of the cheap item may be far more than the long lived one

On 4/16/2016 4:45 AM, bob haller wrote:
emphasis should be on making durable long lasting appliances etc.....

the current build it as heap as possible so we can sell a new one.

Actually, it appears that the *market* is driving the rush to the bottom.
How many folks "buy on time"? Isn't buying a cheap, (inferior) product
an direct analogy? Pay a little -- and get a LITTLE use out of it?

should be make it very durable, so it will last a long time and be easily repairable.

Think of *all* the people that you know. How many *do* repairs?
Change the oil in their vehicles? Rotate their own tires? Do their
own plumbing? Maintain their own computers? etc.

Is their excuse for NOT doing these things that "it's too physically
demanding"? Or, "too intellectually challenging"?

Or, "I'd rather watch the ballgame and pay someone to deal with that stuff"?

So, what incentive is there to make items that can be repaired WITHOUT
special tools? (damn near everything is "easily repairable" -- once
you have invested in the tools (and knowledge) to do so!

this would cut the trash stream..........

On 4/16/2016 3:13 PM, bob haller wrote:


Do most people want appliances that last a lifetime and are they willing
to pay the increased cost for them? I don't. I have no complaints
as to the longevity of any appliances that I've bought. Only exception
would be a fairly expensive Sony LCD TV that I bought that only lasted
about 5 years.

there are 2 expenses to consider.

the cost to buy the whatever.....

the cost to build, ship, recucle the cheap model vs a long term long lived item

the lifetime costs of the cheap item may be far more than the long lived one


I assume you are talking about major appliances that do their job well.
I expect the washer, refrigerator and the like to last a long time.
Other stuff not so much.

New technology becomes affordable quickly and I don't always want it to
last forever. I did add a hard drive to my 8088 computer but it still
seems to lag the ones used today. When my 19" portable TV we bought in
1966 dies I'm going to get a color set. Meantime, I'm getting my
money's worth from it.

On 4/16/2016 1:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I assume you are talking about major appliances that do their job well. I
expect the washer, refrigerator and the like to last a long time. Other stuff
not so much.

How do you differentiate between those that "do their job well"?
Price? Size? Weight?

You can easily spend more on a TV (or PC) than a "major appliance".
Should the TV have a longer expected lifespan due to its higher cost?
(it's not doing any *work* -- moving a mass through a distance -- so
why should it "wear out"?) Ditto your poor, "overworked" cell phone?

Manufacturers design to what their markets will tolerate -- which is
usually different from what they will EXPECT.

New technology becomes affordable quickly and I don't always want it to last
forever. I did add a hard drive to my 8088 computer but it still seems to lag
the ones used today. When my 19" portable TV we bought in 1966 dies I'm going
to get a color set. Meantime, I'm getting my money's worth from it.

On 4/16/2016 5:03 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 4/16/2016 1:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I assume you are talking about major appliances that do their job
well. I
expect the washer, refrigerator and the like to last a long time.
Other stuff
not so much.

How do you differentiate between those that "do their job well"?
Price? Size? Weight?

You can easily spend more on a TV (or PC) than a "major appliance".
Should the TV have a longer expected lifespan due to its higher cost?
(it's not doing any *work* -- moving a mass through a distance -- so
why should it "wear out"?) Ditto your poor, "overworked" cell phone?

Manufacturers design to what their markets will tolerate -- which is
usually different from what they will EXPECT.


Balance is the key. You say a TV does no work by your definition, but
it does a function. Anything mechanical or electrical will eventually
wear out or break. I have expectations for the TV to last 8 to 10 years
but I don't expect it to have the same quality of parts used in a space
shuttle. Lives don't depend on it and it is relatively easy to repair
or replace. A TV built to last a respectable time can be built for $500
and I'm happy with that. If it can be made to last 40 years and cost
$2000, I'm not interested. The technology will be outdated. As you say,
it is what the market will tolerate.

On 4/16/2016 2:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2016 5:03 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 4/16/2016 1:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I assume you are talking about major appliances that do their job
well. I
expect the washer, refrigerator and the like to last a long time.
Other stuff
not so much.

How do you differentiate between those that "do their job well"?
Price? Size? Weight?

You can easily spend more on a TV (or PC) than a "major appliance".
Should the TV have a longer expected lifespan due to its higher cost?
(it's not doing any *work* -- moving a mass through a distance -- so
why should it "wear out"?) Ditto your poor, "overworked" cell phone?

Manufacturers design to what their markets will tolerate -- which is
usually different from what they will EXPECT.


Balance is the key. You say a TV does no work by your definition, but it does
a function.

Of course. My point was most "major appliances" have moving parts.
You *expect* moving parts to wear -- and wear proportional to the
amount of use (and abuse) they experience.

Anything mechanical or electrical will eventually wear out or
break. I have expectations for the TV to last 8 to 10 years but I don't expect
it to have the same quality of parts used in a space shuttle. Lives don't
depend on it and it is relatively easy to repair or replace.

Lives don't depend on your dishwasher, washing machine or refrigerator, either!
:

A TV built to
last a respectable time can be built for $500 and I'm happy with that. If it
can be made to last 40 years and cost $2000, I'm not interested. The
technology will be outdated. As you say, it is what the market will tolerate.

Sadly, the difference in longevity amounts to almost peanuts!

I routinely rescue "defective" LCD monitors and TV's. The former usually
"die" from capacitor failure (or, FETs in the inverter that runs the
backlights).

Capacitors typically fail from prolonged exposure to heat.

Locating the capacitors in a cooler place on the circuit board
can improve lifespan. Adding active (or passive) cooling can,
as well.

But, a manufacturer can also specify a component that is rated at a higher
lifespan AT that elevated temperature, if this is an expected failure mode!
For example, IN SINGLE UNIT QUANTITIES (monitor manufacturers buy in
HUGE quantities!), a "1000Hr" component may cost 51c -- while a "7000Hr"
component costs 62c.

In a monitor, you may have half a dozen of these (not all of which are
problematic based on their roles in the circuit). So, add 60c to the
cost of the product (again, assuming you are making JUST ONE of them!).

Most electronic (consumer) kit has a 350% markup. So, the end user sees
that product "price" go up a whopping $2 -- on a $100+ item

(again, assuming you're only building ONE of them!)

The 62c drops to 31c if you buy 100 (i.e., enough to make ~16 monitors).
Then, to 20c if you buy 1000.

(by contrast, that 51c item is 15c at 1000. So, 5c premium per component
for 6 components is a 30c adder to the product cost. Or, ~$1 to the
consumer)

So, when I rescue a monitor, I look at the time its going to take me
to disassemble it, troubleshoot, order replacement components, install
those components and *test* the repaired device -- then consider whether
I want to "invest" an extra 60c (the *cost* difference for the components
to me) to double/triple/quadruple the time between when I might NEXT
have to do this.

[The answer doesn't even merit the time to consider the question!]

The same sort of calculus applies to TV's. Our plasma was manufactured
in 2003. It's *tried* to give up the ghost but I've not let it :

As soon as I can clear some floor space, I'll set to work repairing the
two LCD TV's (no doubt, their problem is caps in the power supply or
LDO regulators) -- another "cheap" fix.

So, why don't manufacturers take those extra steps?

I suspect a lot of it is churn. But, also, a cut-throat marketplace.
How do you justify an extra few dollars on your selling price for
something that the purchaser won't be able to fathom? (And, surely,
you don't want to state that your REGULAR product is only designed
with a SHORT lifetime in mind!)

[A *smart* strategy is to offer a "slightly better" product to a
resaler that intends to push "extended warranties". The resaler
charges an extra $50 for the warranty *knowing* that the manufacturer
has added $2 to his price to minimize the chances of those "typical"
failures resulting in a warranty claim in that period!]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:13:35 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

the lifetime costs of the cheap item may be far more than the long lived one

LOL

On 4/16/2016 7:07 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:13:35 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

the lifetime costs of the cheap item may be far more than the long lived one

LOL


My father used to say a poor man cannot
afford a cheap shirt.

Probably quoting his father, and his
father before.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 5:27:37 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

[A *smart* strategy is to offer a "slightly better" product to a
resaler that intends to push "extended warranties". The resaler
charges an extra $50 for the warranty *knowing* that the manufacturer
has added $2 to his price to minimize the chances of those "typical"
failures resulting in a warranty claim in that period!]

Me and my brother did service work for a lot of restaurants. One pizza place had Viewsonic LCD monitors on it's POS (point of sale) system and the monitors in the kitchen area that were mounted high, close to the ceiling. The monitors gronked after a year in the heat. We replaced the failed electrolytics with caps that were rated at a higher voltage and higher temperature. That was 4 or 5 years ago and as far as I know, the monitors are still working. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle POS Monster

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 6:07:46 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:13:35 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

the lifetime costs of the cheap item may be far more than the long lived one

LOL

It's true. I paid twice as much for 6 ply truck tires for my service van. The tires lasted three time longer than the cheap tires and never went flat, even when worn down to the belts. I was never late for a call because of a flat tire and could drive the van anywhere like a construction site where there were all sorts of sharp things that puncture tires. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Flat Monster

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 7:51:24 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:

Me and my brother did service work for a lot of restaurants. One pizza place had Viewsonic LCD monitors on it's POS (point of sale) system and the monitors in the kitchen area that were mounted high, close to the ceiling. The monitors gronked after a year in the heat. We replaced the failed electrolytics with caps that were rated at a higher voltage and higher temperature. That was 4 or 5 years ago and as far as I know, the monitors are still working. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle POS Monster

....you've told this before...and "its" would be correct (because it's not the contraction, and there is no possessive for "it".

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 5:27:37 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 4/16/2016 2:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Anything mechanical or electrical will eventually wear out or
break. I have expectations for the TV to last 8 to 10 years but I don't expect
it to have the same quality of parts used in a space shuttle. Lives don't
depend on it and it is relatively easy to repair or replace.

Lives don't depend on your dishwasher, washing machine or refrigerator, either!

....wasn't *that* his point?

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 8:43:11 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 7:51:24 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:

Me and my brother did service work for a lot of restaurants. One pizza place had Viewsonic LCD monitors on it's POS (point of sale) system and the monitors in the kitchen area that were mounted high, close to the ceiling. The monitors gronked after a year in the heat. We replaced the failed electrolytics with caps that were rated at a higher voltage and higher temperature. That was 4 or 5 years ago and as far as I know, the monitors are still working. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle POS Monster

...you've told this before...and "its" would be correct (because it's not the contraction, and there is no possessive for "it".

yES i KNOW, SOMETINES i HIT TH WONG KEY OAR MIS A LTTER. I think I was going to write something else and failed to proofread after I changed a sentence. You should have seen my typing when I was taking the medication that made my hands shake. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Illiterate Monster

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 5:43:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/16/2016 5:03 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 4/16/2016 1:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I assume you are talking about major appliances that do their job
well. I
expect the washer, refrigerator and the like to last a long time.
Other stuff
not so much.

How do you differentiate between those that "do their job well"?
Price? Size? Weight?

You can easily spend more on a TV (or PC) than a "major appliance".
Should the TV have a longer expected lifespan due to its higher cost?
(it's not doing any *work* -- moving a mass through a distance -- so
why should it "wear out"?) Ditto your poor, "overworked" cell phone?

Manufacturers design to what their markets will tolerate -- which is
usually different from what they will EXPECT.


Balance is the key. You say a TV does no work by your definition, but
it does a function. Anything mechanical or electrical will eventually
wear out or break. I have expectations for the TV to last 8 to 10 years
but I don't expect it to have the same quality of parts used in a space
shuttle. Lives don't depend on it and it is relatively easy to repair
or replace. A TV built to last a respectable time can be built for $500
and I'm happy with that. If it can be made to last 40 years and cost
$2000, I'm not interested. The technology will be outdated. As you say,
it is what the market will tolerate.

+1

And I guess we agree that from what I see today, the balance point
is OK. 10 years for a TV is good, long before that technology has
already improved and I wouldn't want to pay extra money up front for
one that will last 15 or 20. If they had made those rear projection
big screen TVs to last 20+ years, instead of 10+, charging more, would
people really have been better off?


For major kitchen appliances, 20 years is good
for me. Before that, it typically is looking old, outdated, etc.
About the only thing that I see people reporting that I would be
concerned about is maybe a furnace and central AC. Seems a lot of
people are reporting new high eff furnaces failing at 10 to 15 years.
There 20 min would be good and I'd probably pay more for one that would
last. But IDK how many other people would, because today a lot of
people aren't in the same house for 20 years.

"Don Y" wrote in message

stuff snipped

The problem with most landfills is they are too close in and eventually
become developed land.

That's more of an urban planning problem. The land can be zoned for parks,
not construction. Or the stuff can be transported further away by very
efficient barge or rail transport.

I had a friend who bought a house that ended up near a trash incinerator.
It was not a good experience as humans seem very able to detect even minute
particles of smoke in the air. I also shudder to think what went into that
trash that really shouldn't have been burned because I've watched police
academy cadets sort through garbage looking for murder victim parts.

The city is currently addressing a problem
related to trying to support a bridge on land that had previously been
a landfill.

I've read that a gypsum-like byproduct of some mining process added to the
landfills really stiffens the soil enough to build *small* buildings on. As
I recall they inject it under pressure to fill all the voids in the landfill
material and it eventually harders. IIRC, it works best with sewage sludge.
(-:

The "soil" isn't strong enough to support the load and,
as a result, pilings must be driven much deeper through the
accumulated trash.

That's one of those problems that can be solved by adding a little more
money to compensate for bad planning (anchoring a bridge in a landfill!!!).

Some problems, like the poor resistance to earthquake shaking, can't be
solved with just a little money. I believe several areas in California and
Japan have already suffered the consequences. The civil engineers who allow
landfilled land to be used inappropriately should be interred in those
landfills when the die. (-:

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green posted for all of us...


I've read that a gypsum-like byproduct of some mining process added to the
landfills really stiffens the soil enough to build *small* buildings on. As
I recall they inject it under pressure to fill all the voids in the landfill
material and it eventually harders. IIRC, it works best with sewage sludge.


Have you found a cure for ED?

--
Tekkie