Author Topic: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds  (Read 52912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1100
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #700 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: 786
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #701 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: 786
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #702 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: 786
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #703 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: 1100
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #704 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

Online Wolfgang

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #705 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: 786
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #706 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: 1100
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #707 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: 168
  • Country: ar
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #708 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: 786
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #709 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: 786
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #710 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.
 

Online Wolfgang

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #711 on: January 04, 2019, 09:33:53 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.

I am asking myself if all the ardent Weller defenders here are either dealers, stockholders or otherwise affiliated with Weller -

then they did a terrible job on regaining customer confidence in Wellers products and company image - OR -

they are associated with some of Wellers fiercest competitors trying to discredit the company - then they were really brilliant.  :) :) :-DD
 
The following users thanked this post: Electro Detective

Offline fsr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Country: ar
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #712 on: January 04, 2019, 09:36:35 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.
But it doesn't have a mains fuse. That's what this is all about.
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7904
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #713 on: January 04, 2019, 09:45:49 pm »
I am asking myself if all the ardent Weller defenders here are either dealers, stockholders or otherwise affiliated with Weller -

then they did a terrible job on regaining customer confidence in Wellers products and company image - OR -

they are associated with some of Wellers fiercest competitors trying to discredit the company - then they were really brilliant.  :) :) :-DD
"These people don't agree with me. They must have financial motives!"

What a shameful suggestion. Maybe it's the lack of relevant evidence?
 
The following users thanked this post: timelessbeing, jancumps, drussell

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7904
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #714 on: January 04, 2019, 09:49:46 pm »
But it doesn't have a mains fuse. That's what this is all about.
Please refer to the last time you brought this up. It appears you're being wilfully obtuse for the sake of arguing.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1160-weller-responds/msg2068060/#msg2068060
 

Online Wolfgang

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #715 on: January 04, 2019, 09:55:15 pm »
I am asking myself if all the ardent Weller defenders here are either dealers, stockholders or otherwise affiliated with Weller -

then they did a terrible job on regaining customer confidence in Wellers products and company image - OR -

they are associated with some of Wellers fiercest competitors trying to discredit the company - then they were really brilliant.  :) :) :-DD
"These people don't agree with me. They must have financial motives!"

What a shameful suggestion. Maybe it's the lack of relevant evidence?

Fully agree. It *is* shameful to cut corners at a penny safety device that would have prevented what happened to Dave. And this for a self-proclaimed premium brand with all the Chinese doing better.
 
The following users thanked this post: Electro Detective

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7904
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #716 on: January 04, 2019, 09:58:31 pm »
Fully agree. It *is* shameful to cut corners at a penny safety device that would have prevented what happened to Dave. And this for a self-proclaimed premium brand with all the Chinese doing better.
There's a good way of finding out whether that actually would have prevented what happened to Dave. How much are you donating to the testing funds? $50?
 

Online Wolfgang

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #717 on: January 04, 2019, 10:03:02 pm »
Fully agree. It *is* shameful to cut corners at a penny safety device that would have prevented what happened to Dave. And this for a self-proclaimed premium brand with all the Chinese doing better.
There's a good way of finding out whether that actually would have prevented what happened to Dave. How much are you donating to the testing funds? $50?
Why not ? The only thing I dont like about it that we are collecting money to *buy* stuff from Weller. If they supply the soldering stations for free, I would donate to the other costs of the test.
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3280
  • Country: us
  • 💎
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #718 on: January 04, 2019, 10:03:50 pm »
i wanna know how many people defending this shit burn tires in their living room fireplace

also don't buy shit they sell. just seriously bad engineering practice. if you support that then there is probably a laundry list of stuff behind the crap you produce. you can build a good product or you can run a company like a auto balancing bridge that is on the precipice of being legal to sell. if it was something extraordinary close to engineering limits then i can see that regulation is difficult to meet. but this is not. its a little rod that gets hot, its not a fucking cold fusion reactor trying to meet emi compliance and safety regulations. there should be common sense offset.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 10:11:20 pm by coppercone2 »
 
The following users thanked this post: Electro Detective

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7904
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #719 on: January 04, 2019, 10:15:36 pm »
Why not ? The only thing I dont like about it that we are collecting money to *buy* stuff from Weller. If they supply the soldering stations for free, I would donate to the other costs of the test.
Consider that a well set up and documented test which turns out to be unfavourable for Weller is likely to cost them significantly more than that. If there really are problems, Weller won't profit. If it doesn't turn out to be an issue, it's not really an issue the units are bought. Are you in?

We're still looking for tests which test the necessity of a primary fuse when normal voltages are applied. Right now we only have two gross overloading tests. Suggestions are welcome.
 

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1100
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #720 on: January 04, 2019, 10:23:07 pm »
i wanna know how many people defending this shit burn tires in their living room fireplace

I can't even imagine how much fun some of you guys were having trying to impugn all the old-school manufacturers back-in-the-day when we had current-production things like live chassis TVs and radios that were perfectly cromulent design choices at the time....   :)

I suppose, in here, there will probably now be a lobby for imbedded smoke-detectors on all new transformer-operated devices to cut the current to the supply in the case of a failure, unlike those old-fangled, transformer-based, death-trap wall-warts...  You know, instead we must all now use those ultra-safe, super-reliable chinese SMPS thingies that everything seems to come with.    :palm:

"But they have a fusible resistor in them!"

Fusible resistor, indeed....   :palm:

 

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2878
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #721 on: January 04, 2019, 10:23:49 pm »
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...

It all relies on people reporting incidents to the manufacturer and consumer product safety authorities. How many of us check our gear for safety advisories or recalls?
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2011/Stained-Glass-Soldering-Irons-Recalled-By-Cooper-Tools-Due-to-Burn-Hazard/
"The electrical cord attached to the iron can detach from the flex point at the base of the handle. If the electrical cord fails while the product is in use and the cord is touching the user's skin, it could produce an electrical arc that could cause a burn.

There have been three reported injuries, all of which were superficial burns to the hand, none requiring medical attention. Two of the reported injuries occurred in the United States of America and one in Canada."

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2005/cpsc-cooper-hand-tools-announce-recall-of-weller-heating-element-used-in-soldering
"Hazard: The housing of the heating element can unexpectedly leak hot metal, posing a serious risk of a burn injury to the user.
Incidents/Injuries: Cooper has received four reports of the housing of the heating element leaking hot metal. No injuries have been reported."

If nothing is reported, then the stations must be fine. Right?
 
The following users thanked this post: TheDane

Online Wolfgang

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
  • Country: de
  • Its great if it finally works !
    • Electronic Projects for Fun
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #722 on: January 04, 2019, 10:32:58 pm »
Why not ? The only thing I dont like about it that we are collecting money to *buy* stuff from Weller. If they supply the soldering stations for free, I would donate to the other costs of the test.
Consider that a well set up and documented test which turns out to be unfavourable for Weller is likely to cost them significantly more than that. If there really are problems, Weller won't profit. If it doesn't turn out to be an issue, it's not really an issue the units are bought. Are you in?

We're still looking for tests which test the necessity of a primary fuse when normal voltages are applied. Right now we only have two gross overloading tests. Suggestions are welcome.

IMHO, The tests should comprise the following:

- Line voltage transients (some standardized procedure. I dont know what the US rules ask for)
- permanent overvoltage (as happened to Dave)

then, it should be decided what a pass and a fail is and after what time this needs to be determined. Candidates:

- An open fire is a fail (I think that is clear)
- Too much smoke so that smoke detectors go off is a fail too.

The tests should be done in a certified (fireproof) lab.

I think the communication policy of Weller is a desaster anyway, but they dont care so much. They could repair their image by supplying the units.
Daves video has been seen by a few thousand people by now, and it is plausible that not all of them will buy a Weller next time  :)
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7904
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #723 on: January 04, 2019, 10:47:28 pm »
IMHO, The tests should comprise the following:

- Line voltage transients (some standardized procedure. I dont know what the US rules ask for)
- permanent overvoltage (as happened to Dave)

then, it should be decided what a pass and a fail is and after what time this needs to be determined. Candidates:

- An open fire is a fail (I think that is clear)
- Too much smoke so that smoke detectors go off is a fail too.

The tests should be done in a certified (fireproof) lab.

I think the communication policy of Weller is a desaster anyway, but they dont care so much. They could repair their image by supplying the units.
Daves video has been seen by a few thousand people by now, and it is plausible that not all of them will buy a Weller next time  :)
Your pass or fail requirements seem reasonable enough. You could argue that a smoke detector going off isn't an actual danger, but it would represent an inconvenience. I'm afraid that requiring certified labs and such will put it beyond the attainable. It should be very doable to come up with a few representative tests which can be set up without too much hassle. It seems most important to properly monitor what's going on. Obviously a regular camera, voltage and current going in would be good to monitor and maybe a thermal camera. I'm not sure how to quantify the smoke production. Maybe build a box with some kind of smoke detector in it? Can those do quantitative measurements or would that call for more specialised kit?
 

Offline fsr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Country: ar
Re: EEVblog #1160 - Weller Responds
« Reply #724 on: January 04, 2019, 11:00:11 pm »
But it doesn't have a mains fuse. That's what this is all about.
Please refer to the last time you brought this up. It appears you're being wilfully obtuse for the sake of arguing.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1160-weller-responds/msg2068060/#msg2068060
That didn't proved anything to me.
If the smoking, fuseless transformer looks like it's safe to you, well, you're free to think whatever you like. But don't expect that most people will think the same.

And as i said, you cannot guarantee the safety of a transformer that was smoking it's enamel. A fuse would have blown before that happens.
So, why not to include a fuse, when it's very cheap, everyone else uses it, and would improve the safety of the device? Nobody designs mains connected equipment without a mains fuse, because when shit goes wrong with mains, it goes really wrong. Too much power there. Would you remove the fuse just because your found some certification that won't require one? I wouldn't expect a simple 40 watts soldering iron to be fused, because, well, there's no much space to even put a fuse in there, and it has just a heating element inside, and that's it. Neither would i leave it connected and go away for any significant amount of time. But a soldering station? Is there even another fuseless soldering station out there?

Maybe to weller this falls under the ridiculous reasoning of "this may cost $1 per unit, but in 1,000,000 units, that's $1,000,000 we could save". But then, why not just charge $1 more, and be done with it?

Maybe it's a design issue or manufacturing error? But then, it's crazy if they don't fix it, as they could get sued. At least go the "xbox way", and provide an external safety.

And even more important: if they have a good reason for the fuse to not be there, just share that information with the electronics community!!
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 11:03:08 pm by fsr »
 
The following users thanked this post: Electro Detective


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf