On Sep 18, 9:48 am, cavelamb himself wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:14:21 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Hi folks,

I apologise if the title is a bit of a mouthful. But I've been thinking
about this issue for some time, and would like to seek the opinion of
people here. You frequently hear people complain about the quality of
modern products and say things like "They don't make them like they used
to". But it has occurred to me that maybe older products look good today
because only the good products have stood the test of time, and the poor
products have been thrown away years ago. What do people think? Were
products better in general back in the fifties, say, or were there a
mixture of good and bad? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions, as
I'm not old enough to remember myself.

Best wishes,

Chris

No problem. Some people here are so old that we can't remember, either. g

It's a mixed bag. Cars are much better, and fishing reels are, too. But
wooden matches have gone to hell. Toasters today are complete crap compared
to the old ones.

Most appliances are total crap nowadays. If you've moved a washer,
dryer, or fridge since about the year 2000, you'd have noticed that
they're about half the weight of their earlier counterparts; 1/3 the
weight of '50s items (many of which are still kicking.)

Aw shucks, even web sites ain't what they used to be...

The Secret Life Of Machines videos seem to ahve disappeared.
I wanted to cite the video because it actually SHOWED teh huge block of
concrete in the bottom of the old washing machines.

Which might have had an effect on weight

http://www.secretlifeofmachines.com/...washing_machin...

Richard

Check Tim Hunkin's web site, especially http://www.timhunkin.com/41_slom1.htm

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:52:22 -0700, the infamous Gunner
scrolled the following:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:20:03 -0400, Wes wrote:

I'm with you on all of that. I'd love to have a decent strike everywhere match.

http://www.riverjunction.com/catalog...n/matches.html

Fine, iffen ya lived in or around McGregor, Iowa. (Pickup only)

--
Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous
delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.
--e e cummings

In article ,
Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

No problem. Some people here are so old that we can't remember, either. g

It's a mixed bag. Cars are much better, and fishing reels are, too. But
wooden matches have gone to hell.

I'm with you on all of that. I'd love to have a decent strike everywhere
match.

I suspect the problem is that they took all or most of the phosphorus
out of the match tips, for safety. Phosphorus is poisonous, and can be
really hard on unsupervised children.

Joe Gwinn

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:53:48 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

It seems that someone learned how to skimp on parts way early on, eh?

Mr. Muntz did, with the Muntz TV.

"Then came the TV years. Muntz thought the television sets on the
market at the time were far too complicated, so he experimented by
buying an existing set, disassembling it, then removing parts one at a
time. If the set still played, he removed another part. Then another
and another. Finally, with the set simplified as much as it could be,
it became a Muntz TV! And these black and white TV sets, the smallest
of which sold for $99.95, breaking the $100 price barrier for the
first time, became some of the hottest selling consumer products in
America."

http://www.madmanmuntzmovie.com/index.php?m=2

IIRC, the Muntz TV had 13 tubes while most others had more than 20.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:14:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
Hi folks,

I apologise if the title is a bit of a mouthful. But I've been thinking
about this issue for some time, and would like to seek the opinion of
people here. You frequently hear people complain about the quality of
modern products and say things like "They don't make them like they used
to". But it has occurred to me that maybe older products look good today
because only the good products have stood the test of time, and the poor
products have been thrown away years ago. What do people think? Were
products better in general back in the fifties, say, or were there a
mixture of good and bad? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions, as
I'm not old enough to remember myself.

Best wishes,

Chris

No problem. Some people here are so old that we can't remember, either. g

It's a mixed bag. Cars are much better, and fishing reels are, too. But
wooden matches have gone to hell. Toasters today are complete crap compared
to the old ones.

What I think you'll find is that the quality of goods has risen or fallen to
match the consumers' expectations and desires, with a strong influence
coming from the fact that people don't really *want* things to last that
long anymore.

Now I'll get out of the way as the blizzard of messages sweeps into this
thread...

--
Ed Huntress



Speaking of toasters and related gadgets, I have an old, at least 50
years old, Toastmaster toaster. I have repaired it but the repairs
were minor and the toaster has seen lots of use. The reason I still
have it is because it toasts evenly, repeatedly, and the toast
descends and ascends automatically. A motor does the work and makes a
pleasing sound to boot. And my Kitchen Aid standing mixer was built in
1936. Built by Hobart. I use it to make bread. Today is available a
Kitchen Aid mixer that looks to be basically the same unit. A 3 speed
gearbox jjust like mine. And it's only 1800 frog pelts.
ERS

pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Christopher Tidy
wrote on Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:31:31 +0000
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

pyotr filipivich wrote:


The cheap/bad stuff wore out years ago.

The interesting question is, how much of this bad old stuff was there?


Well, considering that, according to Sturgeon's Law "90% of
everything is crap" - I'd say about one item in ten wasn't.
There is also the issue of "what it was made of". Stuff which
rotted, regardless of quality, is more often lost than the tuff which
doesn't.

That's funny. Possibly true as well. But difficult to cite as science :-).

Best wishes,

Chris

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

But again, when modern TVs do break they're often impossible to repair.


Don't confuse "impossible to repair" with "uneconomical to repair" They are
two very different things. I can't prove it, but I have little doubt that most
TVs are junked with fairly minor problems, easily repaired by someone with the
proper skills and knowledge and with access to the proper parts and information.
The problem is, even that simple repair would cost vaguely as much as a new TV.
Therefore, TV repair shops (except for warranty service depots) are a dying
breed.

I'm not. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough, though. I'm
particularly interested in what happens when spare parts are no longer
available. My guess is that in the absence of spare parts, a modern TV
will be impossible to repair, but an older TV may be repairable in the
hands of a knowledgeable person.

Best wishes,

Chris

Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:53:48 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


It seems that someone learned how to skimp on parts way early on, eh?


Mr. Muntz did, with the Muntz TV.

"Then came the TV years. Muntz thought the television sets on the
market at the time were far too complicated, so he experimented by
buying an existing set, disassembling it, then removing parts one at a
time. If the set still played, he removed another part. Then another
and another. Finally, with the set simplified as much as it could be,
it became a Muntz TV! And these black and white TV sets, the smallest
of which sold for $99.95, breaking the $100 price barrier for the
first time, became some of the hottest selling consumer products in
America."

http://www.madmanmuntzmovie.com/index.php?m=2

IIRC, the Muntz TV had 13 tubes while most others had more than 20.

Interesting story, Don. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Chris

wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:14:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Hi folks,

I apologise if the title is a bit of a mouthful. But I've been thinking
about this issue for some time, and would like to seek the opinion of
people here. You frequently hear people complain about the quality of
modern products and say things like "They don't make them like they used
to". But it has occurred to me that maybe older products look good today
because only the good products have stood the test of time, and the poor
products have been thrown away years ago. What do people think? Were
products better in general back in the fifties, say, or were there a
mixture of good and bad? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions, as
I'm not old enough to remember myself.

Best wishes,

Chris

No problem. Some people here are so old that we can't remember, either. g

It's a mixed bag. Cars are much better, and fishing reels are, too. But
wooden matches have gone to hell. Toasters today are complete crap compared
to the old ones.

What I think you'll find is that the quality of goods has risen or fallen to
match the consumers' expectations and desires, with a strong influence
coming from the fact that people don't really *want* things to last that
long anymore.

Now I'll get out of the way as the blizzard of messages sweeps into this
thread...

--
Ed Huntress




Speaking of toasters and related gadgets, I have an old, at least 50
years old, Toastmaster toaster. I have repaired it but the repairs
were minor and the toaster has seen lots of use. The reason I still
have it is because it toasts evenly, repeatedly, and the toast
descends and ascends automatically. A motor does the work and makes a
pleasing sound to boot. And my Kitchen Aid standing mixer was built in
1936. Built by Hobart. I use it to make bread. Today is available a
Kitchen Aid mixer that looks to be basically the same unit. A 3 speed
gearbox jjust like mine. And it's only 1800 frog pelts.
ERS

That toaster sounds very cool!

Best wishes,

Chris

Larry Jaques wrote:

Most appliances are total crap nowadays. If you've moved a washer,
dryer, or fridge since about the year 2000, you'd have noticed that
they're about half the weight of their earlier counterparts; 1/3 the
weight of '50s items (many of which are still kicking.)

Yup, we just retired a 29 year old washing machine. The spin clutch
went out, and loads were going into the dryer wet and taking forever to
dry. The new machine was, indeed, half the weight or less of the old
one. But, it takes 50% more clothes per cycle, washes them with less
than half the water, and spins them nearly dry. I would have probably
replaced the transmission (at more $ than the washer originally cost)
but it was no longer available. I worry about all the electronic
controls, as we get a lot of lightning.

The dryer I got at the same time was replaced a long time ago, after
several big burnouts of the heating element. The fridge is still
running, and shows no sign of trouble. I'm fairly impressed with that.

Even the salesman said that the new washer would not likely last 29 years!

Jon

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:02:07 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Most appliances are total crap nowadays. If you've moved a washer,
dryer, or fridge since about the year 2000, you'd have noticed that
they're about half the weight of their earlier counterparts; 1/3 the
weight of '50s items (many of which are still kicking.)

Yup, we just retired a 29 year old washing machine. The spin clutch
went out, and loads were going into the dryer wet and taking forever to
dry. The new machine was, indeed, half the weight or less of the old
one. But, it takes 50% more clothes per cycle, washes them with less
than half the water, and spins them nearly dry. I would have probably
replaced the transmission (at more $ than the washer originally cost)
but it was no longer available. I worry about all the electronic
controls, as we get a lot of lightning.

The dryer I got at the same time was replaced a long time ago, after
several big burnouts of the heating element. The fridge is still
running, and shows no sign of trouble. I'm fairly impressed with that.

Even the salesman said that the new washer would not likely last 29 years!

Jon
Neither will I. My washer, dryer, dishwasher were bought 1978, while
the beer fridge started with my SiL in 1955. Second son now has the
washer and dryer.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Christopher Tidy wrote:

That toaster sounds very cool!


Not words you hear every day! :-)

Cheers
Trev

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
My guess is that in the absence of spare parts, a modern TV will be impossible
to repair

MIGHT be impossible to repair...

, but an older TV may be repairable in the
hands of a knowledgeable person.

Possibly. I doubt if you can buy a new flyback coil, or even a CRT for a
70's television. Only a few types of tubes are manufactured these days, though
lots of old tubes are still on the market.

Information is perhaps the biggest problem. I know! This is the "information
age". But decades ago you could buy third-party service information for most
any consumer television or radio on the market. That information (Mostly Sam's
Photofacts) was in a standardized format and far superior to anything that the
manufacturers provided. I doubt if anything like that exists today. Further, I
believe that you will find that many manufacturers today consider their service
information proprietary, and don't even release it!

Vaughn

In article ,
Christopher Tidy wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:53:48 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


It seems that someone learned how to skimp on parts way early on, eh?


Mr. Muntz did, with the Muntz TV.

"Then came the TV years. Muntz thought the television sets on the
market at the time were far too complicated, so he experimented by
buying an existing set, disassembling it, then removing parts one at a
time. If the set still played, he removed another part. Then another
and another. Finally, with the set simplified as much as it could be,
it became a Muntz TV! And these black and white TV sets, the smallest
of which sold for $99.95, breaking the $100 price barrier for the
first time, became some of the hottest selling consumer products in
America."

http://www.madmanmuntzmovie.com/index.php?m=2

IIRC, the Muntz TV had 13 tubes while most others had more than 20.

Interesting story, Don. Thanks.

The problem with Muntz TVs was that they could not be repaired. Most TV
repair shops would refuse to touch a Muntz.

Joe Gwinn

Rebuild. That is the only way.
Not new, but the gun and assembly is new. If the screen is crap -
then it is a no-go.

Check into them.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
My guess is that in the absence of spare parts, a modern TV will be impossible
to repair

MIGHT be impossible to repair...

, but an older TV may be repairable in the
hands of a knowledgeable person.

Possibly. I doubt if you can buy a new flyback coil, or even a CRT for a
70's television. Only a few types of tubes are manufactured these days, though
lots of old tubes are still on the market.

Information is perhaps the biggest problem. I know! This is the "information
age". But decades ago you could buy third-party service information for most
any consumer television or radio on the market. That information (Mostly Sam's
Photofacts) was in a standardized format and far superior to anything that the
manufacturers provided. I doubt if anything like that exists today. Further, I
believe that you will find that many manufacturers today consider their service
information proprietary, and don't even release it!

Vaughn




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Vaughn Simon wrote:

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

My guess is that in the absence of spare parts, a modern TV will be impossible
to repair

(...)

But decades ago you could buy third-party service information for most
any consumer television or radio on the market. That information (Mostly Sam's
Photofacts) was in a standardized format and far superior to anything that the
manufacturers provided. I doubt if anything like that exists today.

That is so true!

You'd have to go all the way back to July 2008.

http://www.samswebsite.com/index_addendum_0102_0906.pdf

And now you have to download repair information over the net!
http://www.samswebsite.com/photofact...e_details.html

But seriously folks. If you have never seen a Photofacts package, please take
the opportunity. They always did an incredibly good job of communicating.

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trk...All-Categories

The first time you see their cartesian component location technique you
should be happily freaked out. I sure was.

--Winston

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:05:45 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:52:22 -0700, the infamous Gunner
scrolled the following:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:20:03 -0400, Wes wrote:

I'm with you on all of that. I'd love to have a decent strike everywhere match.

http://www.riverjunction.com/catalog...n/matches.html

Fine, iffen ya lived in or around McGregor, Iowa. (Pickup only)


Ooops. But now you have a name/brand to google for.

The best ones were Blue Diamond, no longer made..the Ohios, still
made, are better than nothing..but are sucky.

Gunner

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:27:16 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:14:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Hi folks,

I apologise if the title is a bit of a mouthful. But I've been thinking
about this issue for some time, and would like to seek the opinion of
people here. You frequently hear people complain about the quality of
modern products and say things like "They don't make them like they used
to". But it has occurred to me that maybe older products look good today
because only the good products have stood the test of time, and the poor
products have been thrown away years ago. What do people think? Were
products better in general back in the fifties, say, or were there a
mixture of good and bad? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions, as
I'm not old enough to remember myself.

Best wishes,

Chris

No problem. Some people here are so old that we can't remember, either. g

It's a mixed bag. Cars are much better, and fishing reels are, too. But
wooden matches have gone to hell. Toasters today are complete crap compared
to the old ones.

What I think you'll find is that the quality of goods has risen or fallen to
match the consumers' expectations and desires, with a strong influence
coming from the fact that people don't really *want* things to last that
long anymore.

Now I'll get out of the way as the blizzard of messages sweeps into this
thread...

--
Ed Huntress




Speaking of toasters and related gadgets, I have an old, at least 50
years old, Toastmaster toaster. I have repaired it but the repairs
were minor and the toaster has seen lots of use. The reason I still
have it is because it toasts evenly, repeatedly, and the toast
descends and ascends automatically. A motor does the work and makes a
pleasing sound to boot. And my Kitchen Aid standing mixer was built in
1936. Built by Hobart. I use it to make bread. Today is available a
Kitchen Aid mixer that looks to be basically the same unit. A 3 speed
gearbox jjust like mine. And it's only 1800 frog pelts.
ERS

That toaster sounds very cool!

Best wishes,

Chris

It is. Way cool.
Eric

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

The problem with Muntz TVs was that they could not be repaired. Most TV
repair shops would refuse to touch a Muntz.

Not because they were inherently unrepairable, but because they were crap.
There was no way a service shop could end up with a happy customer, so they
learned not to try. You woud probably get the same reaction if you took your
Yugo to your mechanic for a tune up.

Vaughn

"Winston" wrote in message
news:O8HAk.358$UB3.150@trnddc07...
Vaughn Simon wrote:

"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

My guess is that in the absence of spare parts, a modern TV will be
impossible to repair

(...)

But decades ago you could buy third-party service information for most
any consumer television or radio on the market. That information (Mostly
Sam's Photofacts) was in a standardized format and far superior to anything
that the manufacturers provided. I doubt if anything like that exists today.

That is so true!

You'd have to go all the way back to July 2008.

I stand corrected! Thanks

Vaughn

Vaughn Simon wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

The problem with Muntz TVs was that they could not be repaired. Most TV
repair shops would refuse to touch a Muntz.

Not because they were inherently unrepairable, but because they were crap.
There was no way a service shop could end up with a happy customer, so they
learned not to try. You woud probably get the same reaction if you took your
Yugo to your mechanic for a tune up.


Some shops did work on them, but only on a time availible basis.
They were crap when they worked, but the crappy design made it difficult
to locate problems with common TV shop test equipment. I saw one in our
shop, in the early '70s. The price of the repair parts was more than the
set was worth.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:26:01 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote...

The problem with Muntz TVs was that they could not be repaired. Most TV
repair shops would refuse to touch a Muntz.

Not because they were inherently unrepairable, but because they were crap.
There was no way a service shop could end up with a happy customer, so they
learned not to try. You woud probably get the same reaction if you took your
Yugo to your mechanic for a tune up.

Some shops did work on them, but only on a time availible basis.
They were crap when they worked, but the crappy design made it difficult
to locate problems with common TV shop test equipment. I saw one in our
shop, in the early '70s. The price of the repair parts was more than the
set was worth.

From reading the articles from the time and after, they cut so many
corners on the set design and construction to cut price that you had
to have an intimate knowledge of how it worked to diagnose and fix it.

They took out stabilizing and buffer circuits to cut the tube count.
They omitted most trimmer resistors and capacitors, they would trim in
the circuit with a decade box and then solder in a fixed resistor
instead of a pot - and you had to do it in a certain order, or you
would affect the stability of other sections. Easy enough with all
point-to-point construction with terminal strips and tube sockets.
Back then, the labor was still cheaper than the components.

You didn't even get the basics like horizontal hold and vertical
hold trimmers, unless a tech added them later to make the set work.

Muntz omitted extra RF amplifier sections and most filtering,
figuring the set was being sold in strong signal areas only - which
probably led to the obscenely high power levels used by the TV
Transmitters on Mount Wilson, where there is no permanent population
other than the technicians.

There are still areas up there where the RF levels are so hot at
ground level you can light a 4' fluorescent lamp just by taking it out
of the Faraday Cage of your car trunk.

-- Bruce --

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:26:01 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote...

The problem with Muntz TVs was that they could not be repaired. Most TV
repair shops would refuse to touch a Muntz.

Not because they were inherently unrepairable, but because they were crap.
There was no way a service shop could end up with a happy customer, so they
learned not to try. You woud probably get the same reaction if you took your
Yugo to your mechanic for a tune up.

Some shops did work on them, but only on a time availible basis.
They were crap when they worked, but the crappy design made it difficult
to locate problems with common TV shop test equipment. I saw one in our
shop, in the early '70s. The price of the repair parts was more than the
set was worth.

From reading the articles from the time and after, they cut so many
corners on the set design and construction to cut price that you had
to have an intimate knowledge of how it worked to diagnose and fix it.


He never intended them to be serviced, after the warranty.


They took out stabilizing and buffer circuits to cut the tube count.
They omitted most trimmer resistors and capacitors, they would trim in
the circuit with a decade box and then solder in a fixed resistor
instead of a pot - and you had to do it in a certain order, or you
would affect the stability of other sections. Easy enough with all
point-to-point construction with terminal strips and tube sockets.
Back then, the labor was still cheaper than the components.


Actually it isn't mush worse than the early reflex radios where a
single amplifer was used for different frequnncies. The same tube was
an RF and AF amp at the same time.


You didn't even get the basics like horizontal hold and vertical
hold trimmers, unless a tech added them later to make the set work.


By the time the parts had aged enough to need adjusted, it was out of
warranty. The schematics are in the old H. W. Sams Photofacts
collection. http://www.samswebsite.com/

None of the circuits would have ever passed a design review.


Muntz omitted extra RF amplifier sections and most filtering,
figuring the set was being sold in strong signal areas only - which
probably led to the obscenely high power levels used by the TV
Transmitters on Mount Wilson, where there is no permanent population
other than the technicians.


Those mountaintop sites covered a large area, and the back side was
shielded by the mountain. There is no way they would build a higher
power site so people could use cheap YVs. The electric bill was always
the biggest expense at most commercial stations.


There are still areas up there where the RF levels are so hot at
ground level you can light a 4' fluorescent lamp just by taking it out
of the Faraday Cage of your car trunk.


One of those is gone. The okld VOA Bethany plant was so strong they
could have lit everything with stray RF. Over 500 kW of RF in the 1.6
to 30 MHz range.

-- Bruce --


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

My guess is that in the absence of spare parts, a modern TV will be impossible
to repair


MIGHT be impossible to repair...

, but an older TV may be repairable in the

hands of a knowledgeable person.


Possibly. I doubt if you can buy a new flyback coil, or even a CRT for a
70's television. Only a few types of tubes are manufactured these days, though
lots of old tubes are still on the market.

It's difficult to compare the two situations, I know, because the parts
for the latest TVs are currently more plentiful. But would you rather be
trying to fix a 1958 TV right now, or a 2008 TV in 2058? I'd go for the
1958 TV, because the electronics will be simpler with more discrete
components, and so easier to understand. With many items of modern
electronics, you're stuck unless you can get replacement circuit boards.
I tried to fix a Sun computer power supply a while back, and it was a
nightmare. I got it fixed for a month or two, but it was luck more than
anything else. When it failed the second time, I just got another one.

Best wishes,

Chris

Winston wrote:

The first time you see their cartesian component location technique you
should be happily freaked out. I sure was.

How did that work? Just measure along two axes?

Best wishes,

Chris

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

There are still areas up there where the RF levels are so hot at
ground level you can light a 4' fluorescent lamp just by taking it out
of the Faraday Cage of your car trunk.

Now that I would like to see!

Best wishes,

Chris

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:14:21 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

Hi folks,

I apologise if the title is a bit of a mouthful. But I've been thinking
about this issue for some time, and would like to seek the opinion of
people here. You frequently hear people complain about the quality of
modern products and say things like "They don't make them like they used
to". But it has occurred to me that maybe older products look good today
because only the good products have stood the test of time, and the poor
products have been thrown away years ago. What do people think? Were
products better in general back in the fifties, say, or were there a
mixture of good and bad? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions, as
I'm not old enough to remember myself.

Best wishes,

Chris

No problem. Some people here are so old that we can't remember, either. g

It's a mixed bag. Cars are much better, and fishing reels are, too. But
wooden matches have gone to hell. Toasters today are complete crap compared
to the old ones.


Most appliances are total crap nowadays. If you've moved a washer,
dryer, or fridge since about the year 2000, you'd have noticed that
they're about half the weight of their earlier counterparts; 1/3 the
weight of '50s items (many of which are still kicking.)

I'm always impressed when people keep their old appliances going. I
think we should be proud of that kind of philosophy.

Best wishes,

Chris

Christopher Tidy wrote:

Winston wrote:

The first time you see their cartesian component location technique you
should be happily freaked out. I sure was.


How did that work? Just measure along two axes?

You would read the reference designator of a component from the schematic
(Say C329) and look it up in a table. The table would reveal the cartesian
location of the component on the circuit board (Say F-5).

A cartesian grid was superimposed on a photograph of the circuit board
in question.

Letters IIRC were placed along the X axis and numbers IIRC along the Y axis.

When you looked at the intersection of 'F' and '5' on the circuit board
photograph, you could find component C329 in about a seconds time because
your search area was so much smaller than that of the entire board.

I used the same documentation technique for fasteners when I worked at a
well known Cupertino California Computer manufacturer. I saw that an
engineer using my documentation was able to quickly reassemble a notebook
in the proper sequence with the proper fastener in the proper location.

If you look at the Gerber file collection for a modern circuit board you
will see a file that relates each component's reference designator to an
XY offset from some corner fiducial. It's normally expressed in mils
but still reduces location time greatly. What am I saying? It makes it
*possible* to locate C329 in two minutes on a board that contains
several thousand components.

This, to me is the essence of cool.

--Winston

Christopher Tidy wrote:

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

There are still areas up there where the RF levels are so hot at
ground level you can light a 4' fluorescent lamp just by taking it out
of the Faraday Cage of your car trunk.


Now that I would like to see!

Your wish is, etc.

http://www.bbceng.info/Operations/tr...on/rodtube.jpg

Also works at Audio Frequencies:
http://www.goodlivingtips.co.uk/phot...hard_box_2.png

--Winston

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:25:01 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

No problem. Some people here are so old that we can't remember, either. g

It's a mixed bag. Cars are much better, and fishing reels are, too. But
wooden matches have gone to hell.

I'm with you on all of that. I'd love to have a decent strike everywhere
match.

I suspect the problem is that they took all or most of the phosphorus
out of the match tips, for safety. Phosphorus is poisonous, and can be
really hard on unsupervised children.

Joe Gwinn

Partly correct. Elemental white phosphorus is more toxic than
potassium cyanide (orally). But strike-anywhere matches have not
contained white P for a long time. The tongue-twister tetraphosphorus
trisulfide is one of the ingredients in the white tip. It provides
friction sensitivity with low toxicity.

Strangely enough, I was browsing in Stagers Store in Portage PA this
summer, and saw a shelf that had SAW matches. Grabbed a pack of three
boxes. They seem to work pretty well, though they have a tendency to
break more easily than I remember from my youth (tasted an awful lot
of sulfur dioxide while learning to strike a match on my teeth).

Best -- Terry

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:45:01 GMT, the infamous Winston
scrolled the following:

Christopher Tidy wrote:

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

There are still areas up there where the RF levels are so hot at
ground level you can light a 4' fluorescent lamp just by taking it out
of the Faraday Cage of your car trunk.


Now that I would like to see!

Your wish is, etc.

http://www.bbceng.info/Operations/tr...on/rodtube.jpg

Wild!


Also works at Audio Frequencies:
http://www.goodlivingtips.co.uk/phot...hard_box_2.png

Is this from the 60Hz high-tension wires above, or something else,
like nearby microwave transmissions? Amazing!

--
Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous
delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.
--e e cummings

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:57:44 +0000, Christopher Tidy
wrote:

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...

My guess is that in the absence of spare parts, a modern TV will be impossible
to repair


MIGHT be impossible to repair...

, but an older TV may be repairable in the

hands of a knowledgeable person.


Possibly. I doubt if you can buy a new flyback coil, or even a CRT for a
70's television. Only a few types of tubes are manufactured these days, though
lots of old tubes are still on the market.

It's difficult to compare the two situations, I know, because the parts
for the latest TVs are currently more plentiful. But would you rather be
trying to fix a 1958 TV right now, or a 2008 TV in 2058? I'd go for the
1958 TV, because the electronics will be simpler with more discrete
components, and so easier to understand. With many items of modern
electronics, you're stuck unless you can get replacement circuit boards.
I tried to fix a Sun computer power supply a while back, and it was a
nightmare. I got it fixed for a month or two, but it was luck more than
anything else. When it failed the second time, I just got another one.

Best wishes,

Chris
I took a 12 year old 25" Zenith in to a local dealer for a free
estimate when the pix went red. Got the estimate @ $50 the next day
with the advise that the next time the colour went wonky I should
leave it at the curb. Picked it up next day and it has worked fine for
the last six months. Happy Camper!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:45:01 GMT, the infamous Winston
scrolled the following:

(...)

Also works at Audio Frequencies:
http://www.goodlivingtips.co.uk/phot...hard_box_2.png


Is this from the 60Hz high-tension wires above, or something else,
like nearby microwave transmissions? Amazing!

My guess is that it's the HV gradient that exists between
the power line and ground. High Impedance indeed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DumgUdJhzpo

--Winston

In article ,
"Vaughn Simon" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

The problem with Muntz TVs was that they could not be repaired. Most TV
repair shops would refuse to touch a Muntz.

Not because they were inherently unrepairable, but because they were crap.
There was no way a service shop could end up with a happy customer, so they
learned not to try. You woud probably get the same reaction if you took your
Yugo to your mechanic for a tune up.

Yes on the Muntz.

Don't know about the Yugo.

Joe gwinn

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:09:10 +0000, Christopher Tidy wrote:
Winston wrote:
....
Also works at Audio Frequencies:
http://www.goodlivingtips.co.uk/phot...hard_box_2.png

That picture looks fake. There's no indication of anything supporting
the tubes, and you would expect it to show, either as a shadow against
the brighter sky, or by reflected light from the tubes.

You are mistaken. The first few links at
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2
have the details re "Richard Box, artist-in-residence at Bristol University"
setting up 1301 fluorescent tubes in a farmer's field in Bath, England in 2004.
Eg, http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14259 and
http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot...-line-art.html
have more pictures and explanations.

--
jiw

Winston wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

There are still areas up there where the RF levels are so hot at
ground level you can light a 4' fluorescent lamp just by taking it out
of the Faraday Cage of your car trunk.



Now that I would like to see!


Your wish is, etc.

http://www.bbceng.info/Operations/tr...on/rodtube.jpg

Thanks. Great picture. Funnily enough, it looks like a guy I knew at
university, but it can't be him.

Also works at Audio Frequencies:
http://www.goodlivingtips.co.uk/phot...hard_box_2.png

That picture looks fake. There's no indication of anything supporting
the tubes, and you would expect it to show, either as a shadow against
the brighter sky, or by reflected light from the tubes.

Best wishes,

Chris

Winston wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:

Winston wrote:

The first time you see their cartesian component location technique you
should be happily freaked out. I sure was.



How did that work? Just measure along two axes?


You would read the reference designator of a component from the schematic
(Say C329) and look it up in a table. The table would reveal the cartesian
location of the component on the circuit board (Say F-5).

A cartesian grid was superimposed on a photograph of the circuit board
in question.

Letters IIRC were placed along the X axis and numbers IIRC along the Y
axis.

When you looked at the intersection of 'F' and '5' on the circuit board
photograph, you could find component C329 in about a seconds time because
your search area was so much smaller than that of the entire board.

I used the same documentation technique for fasteners when I worked at a
well known Cupertino California Computer manufacturer. I saw that an
engineer using my documentation was able to quickly reassemble a notebook
in the proper sequence with the proper fastener in the proper location.

If you look at the Gerber file collection for a modern circuit board you
will see a file that relates each component's reference designator to an
XY offset from some corner fiducial. It's normally expressed in mils
but still reduces location time greatly. What am I saying? It makes it
*possible* to locate C329 in two minutes on a board that contains
several thousand components.

This, to me is the essence of cool.

Thanks. That's interesting. I wonder if Apple still follow your procedure?

Best wishes,

Chris

I know this is coming rather late in the thread, but can anyone think of
specific examples of older products that were junk?

Many thanks,

Chris

James Waldby wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:09:10 +0000, Christopher Tidy wrote:

Winston wrote:

...

Also works at Audio Frequencies:
http://www.goodlivingtips.co.uk/phot...hard_box_2.png

That picture looks fake. There's no indication of anything supporting
the tubes, and you would expect it to show, either as a shadow against
the brighter sky, or by reflected light from the tubes.


You are mistaken. The first few links at
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2
have the details re "Richard Box, artist-in-residence at Bristol University"
setting up 1301 fluorescent tubes in a farmer's field in Bath, England in 2004.
Eg, http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14259 and
http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot...-line-art.html
have more pictures and explanations.

I stand corrected. I must admit, I'm rather surprised. Does the same
thing happen in brick or wooden buildings under high voltage power lines
in cities?

I'm not sure that the "making use of wasted energy" claimed is correct,
though. I have a suspicion that a field full of fluorescent tubes may
draw more power from the lines than an empty field.

Best wishes,

Chris

There was or still is a stretch of very high tension power lines in New Jersey
that handled 1 Million volts. It was a sight as we drove under them to visit
Dad at Bell Labs.

Near the end of a long trip and wondering what the heck. The area near the
lines were bare of all living plants. Not any grass. The High voltage
produced long lines of purple light about each of the three phases.

It was a test line being tested in the field. Thought of the national grid...

Electric field will excite gas - simply by adding energy to an electron - it
raising in a new quanta shell for a while and then when least expected
(uncertainly principle) fall from this elevated shell and return to the normal
level, giving off a frequency of light proportional to that of the change in
radius. Nitrogen is purplish. Neon is orangish and is busted to red-orange
by other chemicals.


The whole issue is to add energy to the atom within. RF or Heat or AF.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Christopher Tidy wrote:
Winston wrote:
Christopher Tidy wrote:

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

There are still areas up there where the RF levels are so hot at
ground level you can light a 4' fluorescent lamp just by taking it out
of the Faraday Cage of your car trunk.



Now that I would like to see!


Your wish is, etc.

http://www.bbceng.info/Operations/tr...on/rodtube.jpg


Thanks. Great picture. Funnily enough, it looks like a guy I knew at
university, but it can't be him.

Also works at Audio Frequencies:
http://www.goodlivingtips.co.uk/phot...hard_box_2.png


That picture looks fake. There's no indication of anything supporting
the tubes, and you would expect it to show, either as a shadow against
the brighter sky, or by reflected light from the tubes.

Best wishes,

Chris



----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---