Right to repair law

Legh Richardson:
. . .

So what we have are programmed obsolescence, consumerism and commercialism

I'm sure we've seen this one before......
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160612-heres-the-truth-about-the-planned-obsolescence-of-tech

This is the society in which we live.

Legh

I don't find this BBC article convincing or appealing to an engineer. I don't doubt that there is a lamp that has been shining for over 100 years, but how many watts does it consume and how many lumens does it output? I'll not hold my breath for an answer to that one.


In general, with filament lamps, life and efficiency are traded against each other. BS 161, now obsolete, was the standard for GLS tungsten lamps, and various competing manufacurers tried to meet it. The 1000 hour life was a workable compromise between life and efficiency. Some uses bought lamps rated at 10 or 20 volts above actual supply rating, to gain extended life, but at the expense of light output and this could be shown to be a false economy unless replacement labour costs were high. Similar arguments could be brought against the 2000 hour "long-life" lamps that some makers produced.


We have moved on to compact source fluorescent lamps, which give both longer life and higher efficiency. Unfortunately they were not as popular as they should have been owing to poor marketing methods and ill-considered legistation to phase out tungsten lamps.


We have moved further to LED lamps. These are becoming widely accepted. It is not all bad news. This is real  progress.


 

Denis McMahon:

I was told that by law they could not provide this. (I checked up on the law they quoted and found out that this was indeed the case.)

I'm intrigued, that's a new one on me, which law did they quote? Normally the way consumer electronics manufacturers use the threat of law against anyone attempting to supply their service manuals, except to registered repairers, is under copyright law (to prevent cloning), I'm not aware of any safety law that would prevent them publishing it if they wanted to, so would be interested to know what it is. 


Thanks,


Andy

 

Denis McMahon:

Legh Richardson:
. . .

So what we have are programmed obsolescence, consumerism and commercialism

I'm sure we've seen this one before......
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160612-heres-the-truth-about-the-planned-obsolescence-of-tech

This is the society in which we live.

Legh

I don't find this BBC article convincing or appealing to an engineer. I don't doubt that there is a lamp that has been shining for over 100 years, but how many watts does it consume and how many lumens does it output? I'll not hold my breath for an answer to that one.


In general, with filament lamps, life and efficiency are traded against each other. BS 161, now obsolete, was the standard for GLS tungsten lamps, and various competing manufacurers tried to meet it. The 1000 hour life was a workable compromise between life and efficiency. Some uses bought lamps rated at 10 or 20 volts above actual supply rating, to gain extended life, but at the expense of light output and this could be shown to be a false economy unless replacement labour costs were high. Similar arguments could be brought against the 2000 hour "long-life" lamps that some makers produced.


We have moved on to compact source fluorescent lamps, which give both longer life and higher efficiency. Unfortunately they were not as popular as they should have been owing to poor marketing methods and ill-considered legistation to phase out tungsten lamps.


We have moved further to LED lamps. These are becoming widely accepted. It is not all bad news. This is real  progress.


 

Don't assume that the manufacturer has your best interests at heart.  The 1000 hour lifespan for GLS lamps was set by a cartel of manufacturers who wanted to ensure a constant stream of customers buying new lamps.  Longer life lamps would have been slightly less efficient, but they were simply not offered to consumers for fear that the consumers might buy them.


The new LED lamps we get are also designed to fail.  I'm a regular viewer of Big Clive's videos on YouTube.  He recently featured the Philips Dubai range of LED lamps.  As the name suggests, they are only offered for sale in Dubai, in return for a monopoly agreement from the local government.  They are more efficient than the lamps that Philips offer over here, and they are designed to run cooler, so they will last longer.  Of course they will cost a bit more, but it is telling that Philips will not even offer them outside the one country where they have made a special deal with the government.

Denis McMahon:

Legh Richardson:
. . .

So what we have are programmed obsolescence, consumerism and commercialism

I'm sure we've seen this one before......
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160612-heres-the-truth-about-the-planned-obsolescence-of-tech

This is the society in which we live.

Legh

I don't find this BBC article convincing or appealing to an engineer. I don't doubt that there is a lamp that has been shining for over 100 years, but how many watts does it consume and how many lumens does it output? I'll not hold my breath for an answer to that one.


In general, with filament lamps, life and efficiency are traded against each other. BS 161, now obsolete, was the standard for GLS tungsten lamps, and various competing manufacurers tried to meet it. The 1000 hour life was a workable compromise between life and efficiency. Some uses bought lamps rated at 10 or 20 volts above actual supply rating, to gain extended life, but at the expense of light output and this could be shown to be a false economy unless replacement labour costs were high. Similar arguments could be brought against the 2000 hour "long-life" lamps that some makers produced.


We have moved on to compact source fluorescent lamps, which give both longer life and higher efficiency. Unfortunately they were not as popular as they should have been owing to poor marketing methods and ill-considered legistation to phase out tungsten lamps.


We have moved further to LED lamps. These are becoming widely accepted. It is not all bad news. This is real  progress.


 

I had similar when we used the grill on our Neff oven with the door open (as we were used to doing on our Westinghouse oven) and the metal like push button nearby half melted.  I managed to buy a new switch button from Neff, but how to fit it? Nothing obvious by looking at the new one and gently pulling at the old one failed to budge it. Phone Neff and was told that it was not permitted to give repair information out...........  IEng MIET did not impress, so the new one sat in a draw, until we had another fault - it was either the fan motor or an element. Being under warranty (although not for the half melted button!) Neff sent out a local engineer. "Can you do us a favour please?" The method turned out to grip the button with pliers and PULL to the point where you expect to break the switch. Then PUSH the new one on with the switch spindle extended, again to the point where you expect something to break.

Clive

AncientMariner:

 Phone Neff and was told that it was not permitted to give repair information out...

I've been having a good look around and I'm still struggling to to find any legal justification for this, although they could of course mean that their own internal policies prevent it. Consumer manufacturers probably are concerned that if a consumer made a faulty repair, and it resulted in injury or loss, then a claim could be brought against the manufacturer. I can't see that it would succeed, but it would still result in potential costs and reputational damage to the manufacturer, so they probably feel "why take the risk?" They're not going to sell many more products by making repair information available.


Mind you, personally I just keep dismantling, using power tools if necessary, until I can work out how to fix it, and then make up brackets and bodges to replace the bits I've broken! But as a professional safety engineer and risk assessor I wouldn't widely recommend that approach, fun though it is ?


But quite seriously, if anyone does have more info on the legal position here it would be really useful to know.


 Thanks,


Andy

Andy Millar:

Denis McMahon:

I was told that by law they could not provide this. (I checked up on the law they quoted and found out that this was indeed the case.)

I'm intrigued, that's a new one on me, which law did they quote? Normally the way consumer electronics manufacturers use the threat of law against anyone attempting to supply their service manuals, except to registered repairers, is under copyright law (to prevent cloning), I'm not aware of any safety law that would prevent them publishing it if they wanted to, so would be interested to know what it is. 


Thanks,


Andy

 

I regret I can't go back to this law; this was 30 years ago. My suspicions have remained that it was more to do with manufacturers' profits than to safety.

Simon Barker:

Denis McMahon:

Legh Richardson:
. . .

So what we have are programmed obsolescence, consumerism and commercialism

I'm sure we've seen this one before......
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160612-heres-the-truth-about-the-planned-obsolescence-of-tech

This is the society in which we live.

Legh

I don't find this BBC article convincing or appealing to an engineer. I don't doubt that there is a lamp that has been shining for over 100 years, but how many watts does it consume and how many lumens does it output? I'll not hold my breath for an answer to that one.


In general, with filament lamps, life and efficiency are traded against each other. BS 161, now obsolete, was the standard for GLS tungsten lamps, and various competing manufacurers tried to meet it. The 1000 hour life was a workable compromise between life and efficiency. Some uses bought lamps rated at 10 or 20 volts above actual supply rating, to gain extended life, but at the expense of light output and this could be shown to be a false economy unless replacement labour costs were high. Similar arguments could be brought against the 2000 hour "long-life" lamps that some makers produced.


We have moved on to compact source fluorescent lamps, which give both longer life and higher efficiency. Unfortunately they were not as popular as they should have been owing to poor marketing methods and ill-considered legistation to phase out tungsten lamps.


We have moved further to LED lamps. These are becoming widely accepted. It is not all bad news. This is real  progress.


 

Don't assume that the manufacturer has your best interests at heart.  The 1000 hour lifespan for GLS lamps was set by a cartel of manufacturers who wanted to ensure a constant stream of customers buying new lamps.  Longer life lamps would have been slightly less efficient, but they were simply not offered to consumers for fear that the consumers might buy them.


The new LED lamps we get are also designed to fail.  I'm a regular viewer of Big Clive's videos on YouTube.  He recently featured the Philips Dubai range of LED lamps.  As the name suggests, they are only offered for sale in Dubai, in return for a monopoly agreement from the local government.  They are more efficient than the lamps that Philips offer over here, and they are designed to run cooler, so they will last longer.  Of course they will cost a bit more, but it is telling that Philips will not even offer them outside the one country where they have made a special deal with the government.

I certainly do not think manufacturers have our best interests at heart. I have complained a few times on this forum about unhelpful labelling and inappropriate specifications.


I saw Big Clive's article on the Dubai lamp. I am afraid I don't understand how this monopoly agreement benefits either Dubai or Philips, (Explanation, anyone?) other than help Philips to sell off old and less-efficient stock. I think most consumers would be prepared to pay more for something that is longer lasting and more efficient.


And can Philips prevent its competitors from developing something equally efficient? Does it not want to sell more lamps itself?