| General > General Technical Chat |
| Right to Repair - UK and EU making changes to facilitate repairs :) |
| << < (18/20) > >> |
| timeandfrequency:
Hi Alti, --- Quote from: Alti on March 05, 2023, 05:13:45 pm ---You are rejecting other solutions because of some superstitions or irrational goals. Had they made this boiler from thinner and lower grade steel, the heater and boiler could have same Ki values and could have died same day, ultimately making a nice A design. This could have resulted in lower manufacturing and purchase costs, no necessity to burn fuel traveling back and forth with spare parts. Once again - it is not N or Ki but TC that rules. --- End quote --- No : you cannot manufacture a bolier form thinner and lower grade steel to target the same Ki as the heater, because it's a pressure vessel which is a particular device having servere regulatory constrains and a failure means explosion and shrapnels. As for all pressure vessels, their initial lifespan can be extended by periodically doing a pressure assessment test using plain water at SQR(2) time the maximum working pressure. A failure of the resistor, made of non-flammable parts, just leads to no heat, without any other harmful situation. --- Quote from: Alti on March 05, 2023, 05:13:45 pm ---You are blindly pushing into high N designs! --- End quote --- On your side, you believe that a non-repairable B product will be carefully dismantled and its parts will be sold as spare parts on an open market or reused for the construction of new product B. This is a really idealistic situation and we're really far. What actually happens is : a) In the worst case, the dead B product ends up in the landfill or in the ocean. b) The most common case is recycling : plastic, rubber and metals are separated and then sorted. Glass and metal are easy to melt and can be reused. They will keep the same properties forever. Most plastics and rubber are technologically terribly difficult to recycle : it is almost impossible to reuse these materials to build new parts of the same quality. Here's the reality : Ultimately, recycled plastics accounted for only 9.8% of total plastics consumption in Europe. Which means that 90% of the plastic waste is NOT recycled. The sole real outlet for waste plastic are blankets, and rubber can be used for road construction. Other claims about efficient rubber recycling are most of the time nothing else than greenwashing. c) What about careful dismantling ? Well, this does marginally exist and is managed by non-profit organizations that hire social workers in order to repair and sell the appliancesas low-cost repaired second-hand goods. But currently, this situation represents an insignificant 0,05 % of all electric and electronic stuff sold a year. No manufacturer dismantles the defective appliances he sold a few years ago to reuse the parts to put them into new goods. The free market of spare parts you wish is a sweet dream, but it does not exist. The careful dismantling of each appliance, the sorting, wearing analysis and storage cost of each part is much higher than building a new part with fresh matter. The Q<1 situation you are advocating exists when always using new parts, but has - economically speaking - no reality with recycled spare parts taken from non-repairable devices. Figures for France : - 1.2 billion devices sold in 2020. - 600,000 pieces of electrical and electronic equipment collected by the eco-organisation were able to be renovated by Envie and Emmaüs. Hence the 0.05% So yes, I'm actually cleverly pushing for high N designs, because it permits you to keep and use an existing appliance for a very long time by changing the less parts as possible when defective. And above all, as you keep your existing device, this does not require remanufacturing existing parts that are still fully operational. As I already said, today, reuse of spare-parts gathered from defective B products does almost not exist. Recycing plastic and rubber to build the same new parts is close to irrelevant, because technically too complex. So, when the B product is not repaired because of one defective part/assembly, this mainly creates plastic and rubber waste which is usually burnt in an incineration plant. There will come a time when TC will also not become applicable. The sole guidelines will be : How can we produce energy and build goods without using any fossil matter (=hydrocarbons) and so avoid putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Contrary to what you might think, I'm not an extreme proponent of sustainability. But still, I'm not blind. And I hope - like many other people - that the incentive measures decreed for the moment will not turn too quickly into coercive measures. |
| Brumby:
--- Quote from: perdrix on February 26, 2023, 10:50:44 am ---Not sure that I see a solution - it's like the issue to doing my own electrics (in the UK). I rewired my own house completely back in the days when it was allowed, and had it inspected on completion - comment from inspector: "I wish the professionals would work to your standard". Now it's an interesting question whether I'm allowed to or not. AFAIK it's totally not allowed in Australia thanks to very effective lobbying from the trade. --- End quote --- Indeed. Any fixed wiring in a home can only (legally) be worked on by a licenced electrician - and even then, there are differing grades. However, anybody is free to work on things that plug in to a wall socket. |
| Alti:
--- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---No : you cannot manufacture a bolier form thinner and lower grade steel to target the same Ki as the heater, because it's a pressure vessel which is a particular device having servere regulatory constrains and a failure means explosion and shrapnels. --- End quote --- Well then a design could be redesigned not by screws but by increasing Ki of a heater to match boiler's Ki. My point is that any "right-to-repair" concept that focuses on N or Ki just kills all other solutions with potentially lower TC. --- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---On your side, you believe that a non-repairable B product will be carefully dismantled and its parts will be sold as spare parts on an open market or reused for the construction of new product B. --- End quote --- That is an outcome for N>Q>1 and for rational consumers driven by TC, under assumptions of naive A vs B . I point out naive A vs B because it is just an approximation of real world, where Ki are known a-priori, all modules cost the same, Q is finite, replacement of a module does not cost, no War in Ukraine, etc, I am sure you get the point. If you add other factors (like when Q is unknown or you do not have access to service manual and diagnostics and repair costs a fortune) then I have no idea what the outcome is going to be. --- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---This is a really idealistic situation and we're really far. --- End quote --- It is just a model but it grasps the essence of right-to-repair. Yes, reality is more complex. Fortunately, the factors ignored in the model change the boundary between A and B in quite predictable way. --- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---In the worst case, the dead B product ends up in the landfill or in the ocean. --- End quote --- That does not have much to do with right-to-repair. Consumers preferences are solely based on cost and this cost must include all factors. Recycling included. --- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---The most common case is recycling(..) --- End quote --- Again, right-to-repair is not a right-to-recycle or a right-to-biodegradeable-washing-machine. It is an important aspect of sustainable economy but not to right-to-repair. It is so irrelevant that even imposing a right-to-repair law that forces certain Ki does not make sense as this would kill all other lower TC solutions with shorter Ki. So if you want to have less waste, you need to include raw materials and recycling in TC and leave the choice to the consumers. And not ban K<5. --- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---What about careful dismantling ? Well, this does marginally exist(..) --- End quote --- Cannibalization. Somehow people believe cannibalization means something good and productive while it is actually a logical result of Q>>1. I think the market of those appliances that were dismantled are only those where Q is really high and there is some Ki left in those parts. So cars and maybe some less fancy electronics. More fancy electronics is not modular and you cannot estimate Ki left easily so not a very attractive market. --- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---So yes, I'm actually cleverly pushing for high N designs (..) --- End quote --- That is a very important first step. You need to be able to admit you have a problem, to overcome weird right-to-repair preferences. --- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---There will come a time when TC will also not become applicable. --- End quote --- It is always going to be a cost that consumers minimize. It has always been like that and always will be. Of course the TC of sustainable designs has to include recycling but the idea of total cost of ownership stays the same, whether we talk about pants from Mammoth fur or a smartphone - same concepts of Ki, N, Q, same decisions. --- Quote from: timeandfrequency on March 05, 2023, 08:32:05 pm ---Contrary to what you might think, I'm not an extreme proponent of sustainability. --- End quote --- It is unfair when proponents of right-to-repair use sustainability as an argument for "B is better, A is unsustainable!" That is a false argument as you can design recyclable A and not recyclable B. Durable A and crap B. And vice versa. |
| Brumby:
As to "Right to Repair" there are a couple of different aspects to this subject. Before we get into analysis at the nitty-gritty level, let's be clear about exactly what the issues are (as I see it). The fundamental principle is that we don't want artificial measures put in place that make repair more difficult that have nothing to do with the design. For example, blocking manufacturers of components from selling those components as spare parts and not providing service information. If there are some manufacturing processes that make repair more challenging, then that is secondary. It simply means the repairer must have a higher level of skill. A simple example is SMD components. Many members here would have a fair chance of replacing a cracked SMD capacitor, but others may not. This does not mean we should insist on through-hole components just to make it easier for those who find SMD too hard to work with. The same can be said for other challenges - such as BGAs. Just because I would find it difficult, doesn't mean you couldn't find someone who could do it. This is a factor of skill, experience and the right equipment which some hobbyists and, in particular, 3rd party repairers - such as Rossmann - can offer. Secondary to this is the principle of Design for Repairability. This is NOT the fundamental focus of the Right to Repair, but it does come as a close companion. Certainly, there are questions about gluing bits together and offering assemblies as spare parts instead of individual components - and questioning these practices is a subject for discussion - but there are more fundamental questions. The top example I think of is the practice of serialisation - where, for example, a screen is manufactured with a serial number that must be matched with the processor or it will not work properly, if at all. I mean ... Why? Where is the safety or security risk? If there is no good answer to this question (the emphasis on good), then why do it? But let's say there is a good reason - then how could the repair industry handle this? I have mulled over this question and have come up with a process that seems to me to cover the arguments from the manufacturer.... 1. Allow repairers to stock a certain quantity of genuine screens. If you wish, require the serial numbers held to be kept on file with the manufacturer/agent. 2. Provide access to the resources required to register a new screen to the device. This might simply be an appropriate piece of software and an interface (Licence it if you must) 3. Require repairers to contact the manufacturer (or appropriate agency) to record the change and/or get an authorisation code to allow the new pairing. Please let this be done through software and not by calling someone. (Some may argue this is a bullshit requirement - but it does satisfy an argument from the manufacturer.) 3(a) If we make step 3. optional, then that would allow after market parts to be used, with the manufacturer able to identify this fact should issues surface later. Following such a protocol would: a) Allow repairers to perform repairs in a timely manner - for example "on the spot". b) Allows the manufacturer/agent to control the quality of the parts fitted or, at least, be able to identify genuine/aftermarket serialised part usage - even remotely. c) Allows the manufacturer to track inventory of genuine parts d) Allows the manufacturer to track performance of independent repairers through records of repairs. The argument of "safety" is rather contrived, IMO, especially when we have the ability to do repairs on motor vehicles - which are capable of much more harm ... but the fact that electricity is not as visible as a tonne or more of angry metal at speed makes it easier to put fear into the legislators. The "Darwin Award" principle may sound harsh - but there ARE people without formal qualifications that are more than capable of performing repairs in a competent fashion. (There are also those WITH formal qualifications that don't seem to be able to do that - but that is a different conversation.) Bottom line, if the "ordinary Joe" can fix it, then great! If they ruin it, then it's all on them - but at least they had the chance to try. |
| CatalinaWOW:
Brumby, the definition of a "good reason" for requiring serial number compatibility requires some investigation. I worked in an industry that required strong configuration management and production of models that covered years. During that production period design changes were made for a variety of reasons (discovery of a design defect, non-availability of a part or material, cost reduction ....). Those changes were tested very thoroughly to make sure that they did not cause problems with the current product configuration, but often no evaluation at all of whether those changes were compatible with earlier production. Our drawings and change orders precluded use of these parts in repair of earlier production. This didn't mean that the change was incompatible with those earlier configurations. But it did mean that we really didn't know, and couldn't guarantee that all performance would be equivalent. Does this constitute a "good reason"? I know of several industries where much of the product line has common components, and substitution of one or more modules adds function or improves performance. The marketing strategy charges significantly more for the higher performance, and at least occasionally product support of the high end lines is part of the marketing strategy. The entire financial structure of the operation is based on this concept. But if the special modules are sold outside of the producers product support organization it would allow upgrade of the "value" lines without paying the price premium. Does maintaining the developers market strategy constitute a "good reason". Conversely, does the desire of some operators to utilize a high end, no worrys product line have no value? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |