Author Topic: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds  (Read 54899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #675 on: January 04, 2019, 03:24:01 pm »
For the dozenth time now, and I'll keep saying it every time someone brings it up, if there is no potential issue then why does Weller have a primary fuse on almost all of their other (identical function) products?
The answer is the same as the last few times. :) Added to those replies the question can also be reversed. Why would Weller remove the fuse in one specific model and even just a regional variant as I understand it if they obviously have plenty of experience with them? That suggests there's a deliberate design decision and possibly some engineering. You can't just assume it's just penny pinching, even though that's certainly a possibility. It's likely they quantified the problem and may have concluded the actual issue isn't that big.

Like I said the last few times, I'd love to know more about the process involved but I doubt Weller is going to open up about it.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 03:54:01 pm by Mr. Scram »
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #676 on: January 04, 2019, 03:33:31 pm »
Nope.

The problem is that post-Dave's-video, the owners of Weller soldering irons now know that there's a safety issue. If they have any sort of a conscience then they have to be a lot more careful about selling/giving them to random strangers.

It's not just a simple case of them not working when they arrive after a mixup, it's about them going up in smoke within seconds of being plugged in.

Would you still sell them on eBay, knowing what happens?
I must be misunderstanding you, because claiming the soldering stations go "up in smoke within seconds of being plugged in" is preposterous and demonstrably untrue. That didn't happen when Dave originally reviewed the unit and isn't what users are reporting.

Claiming there's a safety issues because there's no fuse is strange too. Many devices are sold without fuse and the safety regulations don't require it either. We've also discussed before that as far as we can tell it was a safe failure. A safe failure isn't a safety issue. It didn't run its entire course, but nobody so far has been willing to put his money where his mouth is to contribute to a few of these units to do a full test. We're really going around in circles with the same arguments being rehashed.
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15117
  • Country: za
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #677 on: January 04, 2019, 04:52:52 pm »
With regard to the car analogy, look at any of the Russian dashcam channels, where you are witness to all ages of vehicles, from the 1940's inspired Trabant, trolley buses, light commuter rail in the streets, to the latest from all the car manufacturers. They all meet each other in all sorts of accidents, and in general, because of car safety technology, the drivers and passengers walk away generally alive, though the vehicle is a wreck. Contrast to the early cars, where the car would be in an accident and would be fine, just the driver would be dead.

Biggest take away from there is that pretty much every SUV will roll over in an accident. Safety technology costs the manufacturers some money, but is worth it.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10099
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #678 on: January 04, 2019, 04:57:27 pm »
A safe failure isn't a safety issue.

Smoke pouring out is not a safe failure.
 

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2953
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #679 on: January 04, 2019, 05:02:57 pm »
The secondary side actually has two fuses, plus thepolyswitch. One is on the PCB.
Yes. hence my description of the black wire ended one as the 'extra ordinary fuse'.  Knowing that there's a fuse on the PCB, its sheer presence hanging off the secondary terminal indicates a design process SNAFU.
Did anyone note the ratings of all the fuses?
Both are 4A. Why you'd have two 4A fuses in series is beyond me.

The secondary fuse + PTC combo... I'll give a perspective and hope the thread S/N ratio stays up there.
From an engineering, physics point of view, if the fuse clears first- the PTC can do nothing. If the PTC trips first, the fuse can do nothing. It doesn't make sense.

With only a secondary fuse, a problem is passing the transformer overload heating tests and short-circuit test.
 
Generally, the transformer is long term tortured at the fuse trip point OR the protective element (PTC) can trip and hold.
Without the PTC, 61558-1; 15.3.2 test is constant current 210% times the fuse rating for one hour, then checking temperatures, insulation etc. which is 4A*2.1 or 8.4A very high hence the need for the thermal fuse to pass this.
UL 1585; 27.1.2b  "... {with} positive temperature coefficient device (PTC), the current is to be measured after 5 seconds of operation."

Here, the PTC gives a lower test current, passing is easy but skirts the transformer's lack of protection.

UL 1585; 27.2 "... Protective devices are to be shorted out during this test."
It doesn't say all or both devices and may be why a second fuse is present. Even the transformer short-circuit test, where the secondary is shorted... must have been done after the terminal pins, after the windings.

I'll check if I have access to UL 5085 -  Low Voltage Transformers safety standard which would apply for the US. It's an old standard with some issues:
"During the regular review and maintenance cycle of the harmonized standards, it was noted that there were several areas in the standards where the requirements were either redundant and/or not clear or that additional clarification is needed. Revisions to the standard to correct the above stated deficiencies also included corrections to typographical errors."  CSA Urgent Bulletin re: C22.2 No. 66 and UL 5085
Proof these old standards have cracks and loopholes and engineering common sense should be used.   
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #680 on: January 04, 2019, 05:11:56 pm »
Smoke pouring out is not a safe failure.
Didn't we discuss this before? If it were to be massive amounts of smoke it may be a problem, but a failure being absolutely smokeless isn't required. Smoke doesn't preclude a safe failure. Contribute to the test units and we can see how much smoke is produced.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 05:14:30 pm by Mr. Scram »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10099
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #681 on: January 04, 2019, 05:24:11 pm »
Smoke pouring out is not a safe failure.
Didn't we discuss this before? If it were to be massive amounts of smoke it may be a problem

Dave's words were "big wide billow of smoke" and "...by the amount of smoke that escaped from this thing, it's not going to be pretty".
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #682 on: January 04, 2019, 05:29:36 pm »
Dave's words were "big wide billow of smoke" and "...by the amount of smoke that escaped from this thing, it's not going to be pretty".
I think he also reported the smoke detector not going off despite it happening the office building, but maybe hecovered up the sensor. I'm not sure.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10099
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #683 on: January 04, 2019, 06:17:05 pm »
Dave's words were "big wide billow of smoke" and "...by the amount of smoke that escaped from this thing, it's not going to be pretty".
I think he also reported the smoke detector not going off despite it happening the office building, but maybe hecovered up the sensor. I'm not sure.

Grab the rubber glove, quick!  :-DD
 

Offline fsr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Country: ar
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #684 on: January 04, 2019, 06:41:24 pm »
How do you guarantee the safety of a transformer that smoked the enamel of it's primary windings? That stuff is isolating every winding. It's no surprise that pretty much everyone else, including weller on more expensive models include a well-known safety device: a fuse.

Unless weller reponds something that makes more sense, i will think that they removed the fuse for strictly economical reasons. If weller had some kind of transformer that didn't needed a fuse, why would they use it only on their cheapest models? Because the more expensive ones do have the fuse, which wouldn't be needed with the "better transformer from the cheapest models". How would a blow-proof transformer cost less than a fuse anyways?

Makes no sense.
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #685 on: January 04, 2019, 06:59:22 pm »
How do you guarantee the safety of a transformer that smoked the enamel of it's primary windings? That stuff is isolating every winding. It's no surprise that pretty much everyone else, including weller on more expensive models include a well-known safety device: a fuse.

Unless weller reponds something that makes more sense, i will think that they removed the fuse for strictly economical reasons. If weller had some kind of transformer that didn't needed a fuse, why would they use it only on their cheapest models? Because the more expensive ones do have the fuse, which wouldn't be needed with the "better transformer from the cheapest models". How would a blow-proof transformer cost less than a fuse anyways?

Makes no sense.
I understand that line of reasoning, but it's equally valid when reversed. Why would Weller risk putting out a dangerous product if it's that easily fixed? It makes no sense, so maybe there's more to it.

It's possible the failure modes Weller identified and quantified are found to be increasingly unlikely. I think I read somewhere in this thread the 230V model is fused and the 120V model isn't? That suggests they've identified some kind of difference in regards to the risks there.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10099
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #686 on: January 04, 2019, 07:01:57 pm »
I understand that line of reasoning, but it's equally valid when reversed. Why would Weller risk putting out a dangerous product if it's that easily fixed? It makes no sense, so maybe there's more to it.

Such as? There's a bunch of real engineers here and they haven't come up with anything.

It's possible the failure modes Weller identified and quantified are found to be increasingly unlikely. I think I read somewhere in this thread the 230V model is fused and the 120V model isn't? That suggests they've identified some kind of difference in regards to the risks there.

Either that or the incompetence runs so deep they got the schematics backwards and the fuse is supposed to be in the 120V version.
 
The following users thanked this post: Electro Detective

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #687 on: January 04, 2019, 07:13:02 pm »
Such as? There's a bunch of real engineers here and they haven't come up with anything.

Either that or the incompetence runs so deep they got the schematics backwards and the fuse is supposed to be in the 120V version.
I could make a snide remark about a bunch of real engineers not coming up with anything, but it's probably better if I don't. ;D The onus is on the claimant seeing a problem to prove there is an actual quantifiable problem. While it's striking they opted for a less usual design, it's not a problem in itself.
 
The following users thanked this post: timelessbeing, drussell

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10099
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #688 on: January 04, 2019, 07:17:56 pm »
While it's striking they opted for a less usual design, it's not a problem in itself.

I'd understand it in a cheap Chinese import but it seems indefensible in a "serious" company like Weller.

Yet here you are.

I could make a snide remark about a bunch of real engineers not coming up with anything, but it's probably better if I don't. ;D

Do you have an explanation other than "bean counting"?
 

Offline Wolfgang

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #689 on: January 04, 2019, 07:23:13 pm »
Such as? There's a bunch of real engineers here and they haven't come up with anything.

Either that or the incompetence runs so deep they got the schematics backwards and the fuse is supposed to be in the 120V version.
I could make a snide remark about a bunch of real engineers not coming up with anything, but it's probably better if I don't. ;D The onus is on the claimant seeing a problem to prove there is an actual quantifiable problem. While it's striking they opted for a less usual design, it's not a problem in itself.

All wrong. If you want to sell a product to me and I have a (I think very justified) concern about it, it is *your* turn to make me trust your product. Otherwise I will never buy it.
We are not in a lawsuit, we are in a *market* . You need to be not only *legal*, you need to be *attractive* and *competitive*.

Please dont hold back your snide comments. I have prepared some, too  >:D
 
The following users thanked this post: Electro Detective

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #690 on: January 04, 2019, 07:32:33 pm »
All wrong. If you want to sell a product to me and I have a (I think very justified) concern about it, it is *your* turn to make me trust your product. Otherwise I will never buy it.
We are not in a lawsuit, we are in a *market* . You need to be not only *legal*, you need to be *attractive* and *competitive*.

Please dont hold back your snide comments. I have prepared some, too  >:D
Remember to breathe. Relax your shoulders. The station went through an array of tests successfully, as is evidenced by the markings. That should be enough to offset an unqualified concern.
 

Offline Wolfgang

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #691 on: January 04, 2019, 07:44:48 pm »
I am so relaxed because I dont have even one Weller. And, IMHO, *very few* people here think that the concern is not qualified or justified.

In the meantime you could do a deep search why:

- Weller has a fuse in almost all other models (and I assume very soon also in this one)
- you are so positive that they always act rationally (I mean, two fuses in series dont make you think)
- your imagination has not brought up *one* good reason for their design (greed excluded).

« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 07:51:42 pm by Wolfgang »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10099
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #692 on: January 04, 2019, 07:49:02 pm »
Remember to breathe. Relax your shoulders. The station went through an array of tests successfully, as is evidenced by the markings. That should be enough to offset an unqualified concern.

So? Even Batteroo had a UL certification.

Complying with the letter of the law and paying for a few stamps isn't enough in a competitive market. You're supposed to generate confidence in your products and attract new customers via. (for example) word of mouth.
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #693 on: January 04, 2019, 07:49:20 pm »
I am so relaxed because I dont have even one Weller. And, IMHO, *very few* people here think that the concern is not qualified or justified.

In the meantime you could do a deep search why:

- Weller has a fuse in almost all other models (I and I assume very soon also in this one)
- you are so positive that they always act rationally (I mean, two fuses in series dont make you think)
- your imagination has not brought up *one* good reason for their design (greed excluded).
It seems you're so relaxed you missed this all being discussed before, some repeatedly. No need to repeat it again, just scroll back.
 

Offline Wolfgang

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #694 on: January 04, 2019, 07:52:46 pm »
Your only answer so far was that *unfortunately* they did not give a statement on these matters.
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #695 on: January 04, 2019, 07:54:34 pm »
So? Even Batteroo had a UL certification.

Complying with the letter of the law and paying for a few stamps isn't enough in a competitive market. You're supposed to generate confidence in your products and attract new customers via. (for example) word of mouth.
The issue with Batteroo wasn't safety related. You don't "pay for stamps", the product actually gets tested. The resulting mark is how confidence is built. I've proposed our own independent testing, but so far the people who see an issue seem content to make their claims without any testing being done on their side.
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #696 on: January 04, 2019, 07:58:05 pm »
Your only answer so far was that *unfortunately* they did not give a statement on these matters.
That question was asked multiple times and answered multiple times. But again: you claim a problem, you prove the problem. A concern does not a problem make.
 

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2953
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #697 on: January 04, 2019, 08:10:24 pm »
Mr. Scram,
You want proof a primary fuse is required, then do your own research and learning instead of demanding we prove it to you. Trolls are lazy and I hope you are not.
Formulate your own answer- not based upon the cowboys here, myself included. Then inform us of your findings so a productive discussion can result.

It's $XX,XXX to get the transformer assessed and then the station. About ten sample transformers would be needed. Fair bit of money.

 
The following users thanked this post: Wolfgang

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8042
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #698 on: January 04, 2019, 08:30:57 pm »
Mr. Scram,
You want proof a primary fuse is required, then do your own research and learning instead of demanding we prove it to you. Trolls are lazy and I hope you are not.
Formulate your own answer- not based upon the cowboys here, myself included. Then inform us of your findings so a productive discussion can result.

It's $XX,XXX to get the transformer assessed and then the station. About ten sample transformers would be needed. Fair bit of money.
People seem to think I'm arguing one way or the other. I'm not. I'm seeing claims being made about the station being dangerous without a fuse. I've asked whether this danger can be quantified, as that's how you know how big the problem actually is. It seems this hasn't happened yet, so it's premature to adamantly claim there's a significant danger. Crucifying a company with so little to go on is silly. That's all I've been saying.

With a few stations you could do at least some testing. A 110V station run at 230V until completely failed would be interesting, to see whether it fails safe. Another would be to add a primary fuse and to see whether that protects the unit completely from 230V. Either would represent user error and isn't representative of what it should reasonsably withstand as it's grossly overloading the device, but it would at least end some of the discussion here. If anyone has other ideas for tests to assess the safety at regular voltages, please post them here. For now I'm putting down $50 to facilitate or aid the purchase of a few units. Let me know what everyone is willing to contribute.
 
The following users thanked this post: drussell, Andrew McNamara

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 789
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #699 on: January 04, 2019, 08:34:21 pm »
Dave, dont worry. Darwinism will take good care of these people.  >:D
Don't hold your breath.  ;)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf