Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > That was the whole point. Someone here said that electronics are > not robust > based on experience with consumer goods. THAT has nothing to do with the > inherent robustness of electronic equipment. If consumer equipment breaks > when you drop it, it's because there is a limit to the > cost/size/weight that > people are willing to pay; it has nothing to do with the inherent > characteristics electronic gear.
Hi Bruce, That is a good point, again I am used to consumer goods expectations. Many developments that we see come onto the market, come from highly important programmes where failure of components is not an option - space shuttle travel etc. That has everything to do with ruggedness for low failure rate and reliability. Your point is well made. Malcolm
