vintage computers and lead poisoning?

From: Tony Duell <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon Jun 7 20:42:20 2004

>
>
> > Only because those devices were repairable and because there=20
> > are people=20
> > around who can repair them!. I would be very suprised if DVD=20
> > players last=20
> > in the same way (for one thing they're a darn sight worse=20
> > made than, say,=20
> > tape recorders, and for another they use a lot more custom=20
> > parts, and for=20
> > yet another there are no service manuals available).=20
>
> I do have one or two service manuals but nothing with
> a schematic. Admittedly a schematic may be of little

Err, I really can't call something a 'service manual' if it doesn't
include a schematic (OK, for the pedants out there, a service manual for
something electronic). It's a 'board swapper guide' ;-).

> use given the nature of the components (a significant
> proportion of which may well be made of unobtanium).

Not so. If you have several identical broken devices, you have much
better chance of getting one working one if you break it down to smaller
parts (suppose there are n ICs on the board, if any one is dead then the
board won't work, but if you have 2 boards with different dead ICs, you
can make one working board out of the the pair).

A schematic is _very_ useful in figuring out which IC is dead...

> Having said that, the only problem with such devices
> that I've had is one portable CD player that got
> dropped and suffered some broken plastic. Having
> received a little mechanical care, it now works
> as well as it ever did. In my experience these
> things seem to suffer from mechanical failure
> rather than electronic failure. (So, yes, the

I've had to repair both on consumer electronic devices. Sure, the
mechanical stuff wears out (which is why you change the pinch roller in
your VCR every couple of yuears if you have any sense (to prevent tape
mangling), but chips do fail. And in my experience, the more complicated
a chip, the more likely it is to fail (it may well be more reliable than
the board of 100 chips that it replaced, but that's not the point here).

> mechanical side is cheap to keep the costs down
> but the electronics seem to be OK ... chips mostly
> just keep working!)

But capacitors certainly don't. Nor do power-handling devices (chopper
transistors, motor drive ICs, etc).

>
> > That is a separate rant. Yes things are too cheap (If they were made=20
> > correctly, and priced sensibly, then they would be worth=20
> > repairing, and=20
> > they would be able to be repaired...)
>
> I think you are in a definite minority with this. I'm with

Very liekly. I'm in a minority for most things...

> Einstein: "things should be as cheap as possible, and no=20
> cheaper" :-) I'm happy that my washing machine is relatively

The quote I've heard is '... as simple as possible and no simpler'. That
is not the same thing.


> cheap (bad example: easily repaired anyway). I'd be even

Odd that I like Asko washing machines....

> happier if my cars were cheaper. I'd probably pay an extra

I've had enough of expensive products, like cars, that cut corners, and
save perhaps \pounds 50 on the price, but have plastic knobs that fall
off, screws in silly places, and the like. I can assure you that if I'm
about to spend \pounds 10000 or whatever on a car, I don't care about +/-
\pounds 50. I do care when I have to keep on going back to the parts
counter to get some trivial component that was underspecified...

> Agreed. When I replace this 21" monitor with something, it will
> almost certainly be a flat-screen (the weight and space savings
> alone make this an easy win) but now that it's on the desk I
> have no real reason to care about those potential savings ...

I much prefer CRTs to LCDs. At the moment I find them a lot clearer (that
may improve), and they're certainly a lot easier to repair.

-tony
Received on Mon Jun 07 2004 - 20:42:20 BST