Donations gladly accepted. Tom C.
>From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 21:59:11 -0400 > >Yes. >On May 22, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Tom C wrote: > > > I used to think that way too. However when one has time to spend > > but not > > the money, they spend the asset they can most afford to spend. > > > > In my case it was time. > > > > Is there anything wrong with that? > > > > Tom C. > > > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:10:37 -0400 > >> > >> My point is you spent 10 hours fixing a broken washer. I value my > >> time > >> at about $70.00 an hour spending 10 hours diagnosing something on > >> that > >> basis I would be $375 in the hole. Actually I replace about half of > >> them as a prophylactic measure. Only two absolutely needed to be > >> replaced, the rest were well on their way to failing and at less that > >> $1.00 each it was well worth replacing them all at the same time. > >> The > >> switch was dodgey and on it's way to failure as well. I could > >> probably > >> have monkeyed around with to make it work better, but only a > >> couple of > >> bucks extra it seemed a no brainer to replace it at the same time. > >> > >> Tom C wrote: > >>> I already told you, but what's your point? Mine is that I saved > >>> $325 I > >>> didn't have free to spend on the unexpected problem. It's not > >>> that it > >> was > >>> hard, to fix because done once I could do it again in less than > >>> an hour. > >> I'm > >>> a clod when it comes to things mechanical. > >>> > >>> It sounds like you replaced lots of minor items without > >>> troubleshooting > >>> them. Whereas I ran though the diagnostic flow chart, took off the > >> drain > >>> pump, checked it to see if it's clogged and operating correctly, > >>> etc. > >> Much > >>> of that, in the end, was time spent isolating the problem, not > >>> actually > >>> repairing it. > >>> > >>> You can't make me feel bad about it. :-) > >>> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:43 -0400 > >>>> > >>>> How many hours did you spend fixing your washer? I replaced every > >>>> important sensor and a switch, (essentially rebuilding the > >>>> electrical > >>>> system), in less that two hours. Most of that was figuring out > >>>> how to > >>>> take the back off. > >>>> > >>>> Tom C wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's > >>>>> just that > >>>>> > >>>> most > >>>> > >>>>> of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's > >>>>> incredibly > >>>>> > >>>> cheap. > >>>> > >>>>> A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that > >> costs > >>>>> > >>>> $20 > >>>> > >>>>> and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting > >>>>> the > >>>>> > >>>> board > >>>> > >>>>> for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the > >>>>> company, time > >> is > >>>>> money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is > >>>>> happy > >> just > >>>>> > >>>> to > >>>> > >>>>> get the serviceman in and out. > >>>>> > >>>>> Tom C. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >>>>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:39 -0400 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Front loads have been around for a long time, even here. The old > >>>>>> technology is much easier to repair, and usually costs less > >>>>>> than new > >>>>>> electronic devices, which seem to designed to not be repaired. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tom C wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well I don't claim to be a rocket scientist. It usually take > >>>>>>> me 2 > >> or > >>>>>>> > >>>> 3 > >>>> > >>>>>>> trips to the parts store or tool store before I get things right > >>>>>>> > >>>> because > >>>> > >>>>>> I > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> learn as I go. I was happy to have saved at least $325. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Two advantages of the newer front load washers (long popular in > >> Europe > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> only becoming popular in the USA over the last decade for > >>>>>>> home use) > >> is > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> they use about 1/3 the water as older top load washers and > >>>>>>> are much > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> easier > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> on clothes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tom C. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:49:04 -0400 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And it drys cloths no better than the 30 year old dryer I > >>>>>>>> bought > >> for > >>>>>>>> $25.00 12 years ago, and fixed for less than $10. Replacing > >>>>>>>> all of > >>>>>>>> > >>>> the > >>>> > >>>>>>>> temperature sensors and door switch in less than two hours. (I > >> ended > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> up > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> giving it away 6 months ago as I had no place to store it). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tom C wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What all these problems really indicate is how cheap, low- > >>>>>>>>>> spec > >> most > >>>>>>>>>> of the electronic components being used are, even in high-end > >>>>>>>>>> cameras. Curiously, my 1966 RCA transistor radio that cost > >>>>>>>>>> me $20 > >>>>>>>>>> (expensive back then!) is still going strong. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Godfrey > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Likely planned obsolescence? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On a side note, I just fixed our 2000 Maytag Neptune washer > >>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> had > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> stopped spinning clothes in the spin cycle. If it had failed > >> about > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> two > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> yeas > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ago I could have gotten it fixed for free under the terms of a > >> class > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> action > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> lawsuit. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It was going to cost upwards of $400 for a service call, an > >>>>>>>>> entire > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> new > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> main > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> control board, and an item called a wax motor which is > >>>>>>>>> essential > >> to > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> locking > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the door. I replaced the wax motor (ultimate source of the > >> problem) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> along > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> with a blown resistor and two transistors on the main > >>>>>>>>> board. In > >> the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> process > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I ruined a metal 'leaf' spring that holds the wax motor in > >>>>>>>>> place > >> and > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> super > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> glued a switch closed, until the new parts arrived. Cost of my > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> repair > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> including parts which I runied in the process was under $75 > >> dollars, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> though > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I have about 10 hours invested in it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Tom C. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my > >>>>>>>> cat is > >> a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> dog. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my > >>>>>> cat is a > >>>>>> > >>>> dog. > >>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat > >>>> is a > >> dog. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat > >> is a dog. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
