Author Topic: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds  (Read 158243 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16531
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #675 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: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #676 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: 16531
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #677 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: 1772
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #678 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: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #679 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: 1772
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #680 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: 16531
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #681 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: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #682 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: 1772
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #683 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: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #684 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: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #685 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: 6899
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #686 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: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #687 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

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 929
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #688 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.  ;)
 

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1855
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #689 on: January 04, 2019, 08:35:58 pm »
Smoke pouring out is not a safe failure.

According to you, perhaps, but that is not the standard, engineering wise or regulatory.

Bursting into flames?  That would be considered bad on all fronts....
Shocking the user?  That would be considered bad on all fronts....

I see no evidence that this specific unit, even while in a complete failure mode, did anything other that precisely what was expected in that particular failure mode.

Solely the fact that some failed unit of any type emits smoke is NOT against any regulations or safety standards that I'm aware of that might cover this particular apparatus.  Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what basis you are making this claim?
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 929
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #690 on: January 04, 2019, 08:39:19 pm »
With regard to the car analogy ... drivers and passengers walk away generally alive

analogy fail

A) There are probably hundreds of thousands of accidents per day
B) You can't control other bad drivers. You CAN control what you plug your iron into.
C) From what I can tell, Dave walked away alive. In fact his life wasn't in danger.
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 929
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #691 on: January 04, 2019, 08:45:24 pm »
expensive models include a well-known safety device: a fuse.
Once again, safety of the iron. Short memory?
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 929
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #692 on: January 04, 2019, 08:49:17 pm »
So? Even Batteroo had a UL certification.
So Batteroo is certified not to kill you. And?
 

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1855
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #693 on: January 04, 2019, 08:51:46 pm »
Do you have an explanation other than "bean counting"?

Do you have any evidence that there have been any failures that resulted in any property damage due to, for example, one of these units bursting into flames and burning down someone's house, lab, place of business, etc?  Has anyone been zapped into a permanent coma by such device?  These are the things that the standards, regulations, etc. are meant to influence...

The standards are concerned with specifics like this.  Perhaps you could elaborate with additional data that would support your claims that these devices are defective in some way that is significantly different than the potential failure modes of a multitude of other products that are deemed "safe" under the standards and regulations en force in this particular market, for this class (low VA transformer-operated) of devices....

I live in Canada, which shares most common regulations, standards and regular practices regarding construction and operation of apparatus.  Should I start going through my house and office to show how many devices are built in the same style?  Is that really necessary?  :)
 
The following users thanked this post: timelessbeing

Offline Wolfgang

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1772
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #694 on: January 04, 2019, 08:52:02 pm »
Dave, dont worry. Darwinism will take good care of these people.  >:D
Don't hold your breath.  ;)
Dont worry. Darwinism has worked well over at least a few 100 million years ...  >:D. It wont fail just here, I am sure.
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 929
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #695 on: January 04, 2019, 08:54:46 pm »
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,

It's long been obvious that they can't quantify it. They can't admit that it's all a circus sideshow, so they will just argue in circles.
 

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1855
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #696 on: January 04, 2019, 08:57:46 pm »
So? Even Batteroo had a UL certification.

Citation, please?!   :-//

Nothing Batteroo has ever produced has any kind of UL Certification.

They paid Underwriters' Laboratories to do a specific "performance" test on their device under specific, provided conditions.  This is NOT and has NEVER BEEN any kind of UL certification.
 
The following users thanked this post: Electro Detective

Offline fsr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Country: ar
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #697 on: January 04, 2019, 09:10:47 pm »
expensive models include a well-known safety device: a fuse.
Once again, safety of the iron. Short memory?
What do you mean?
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 929
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #698 on: January 04, 2019, 09:11:26 pm »
Should I start going through my house and office to show how many devices are built in the same style?  Is that really necessary?  :)
Don't bother. We know and they know that you won't find anything, but they'll make you unwind every transformer in your house anyway, and then they'll invent something else.  :blah:
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 929
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #699 on: January 04, 2019, 09:14:48 pm »
expensive models include a well-known safety device: a fuse.
Once again, safety of the iron. Short memory?
What do you mean?
The fuse is protecting the soldering station. We've been over this.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf