¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Valdan,
Ahh there it is.? I was waiting for someone to say this.? So you believe a schematic is intellectual property that shouldn't be shared?? The service manual is intellectual property, too? Was it intellectual property before when HP shared the information willingly with their customers?? Are we all doing a disservice to HP by sharing their schematics and service manuals without their permission then on this very website?
The truth is it is not intellectual property.? It is information that is needed by the customer to keep their equipment running.? And for that reason it should be shared with the customer.
I do exactly what you describe all the time.? For 90% of our equipment we have there are no schematics/service manuals.? Some of this equipment costs > six figures new.? And yes my company trusts me to repair it in-house.? I perform component level troubleshooting on PCBs without schematics often to great success and huge cost savings.? And while yes I do have a choice as you described, that has been whittled away at by manufacturers.? I already said this isn't just refusal of service manuals and schematics.? I have manufacturers that are refusing the sale of replacement parts unless their tech performs the repair for an absurd labor rate.? The big leagues like Merck, GSK, etc. have no problem paying for service contracts.? What about small businesses trying to get off the ground?? These service contracts are a huge expenditure.? And this is my point about how these practices hinder small business.? What about the man/woman trying to make a living getting their idea off the ground?
You literally sound like you a reading out of the playbook of these companies.? That is another I hear all the time "we don't support customer repair of our equipment because they might do further damage".? Completely asinine.? Perhaps they wouldn't have to worry about that if THEY SHARED THE INFO ON HOW TO FIX IT.
Perhaps when you are faced with a situation where you are affected by these repair prevention practices you'll understand.? You never answered my question about the car example I gave.? Is that an acceptable outcome to you?? When you can't have your >$50k or more car repaired by the company that manufactured it after they charged you and arm and a leg? Or worse, you have no choice but to go to the manufacturer because they've serialized all the parts in their device?? I wonder if you'll still be preaching the same tune then.
Sorry, I am very passionate about this topic.? And it makes my head hurt that in an open source forum like this there are people who don't understand why right to repair is so important.
-Frank

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:05 AM, Frank Mashockie wrote:

It is about having the choice.? The customer having the choice to repair
the item THEY BOUGHT, the way they want to it.? They should be able to
make the determination of which repair is economically viable.
Frank, but you do have the choice. You work in biotech, right? Is anyone stopping you from taking your Illumina, PacBio, or Aviti apart to repair it? The only person who would stop you is your employer who paid for the equipment. If they are fine with your repair skills, I am sure they will let you work on the equipment. You could do what the people on EEVBLOG do so well - figure out how it all works without schematics and code. In return, your employer would save a lot of money on service contracts.
The truth however is that you would have a very hard time figuring out how it all works, so you are asking for free support from the manufacturer. When you purchase a piece of equipment, you are not automatically buying the rights to intellectual property, manufacturing know-how, software that took years to develop, or advice on how to repair the equipment beyond expected and predictable malfunctions. I understan you feel morally entitled to that, but owners of product rights often feel otherwise.
As I mentioned, many of us here are with one leg in each camp. We love to repair certain things, but some of us also have a main life making a living in the business. Those who run a manufacturing (or software) business know what the majority of customers want. They cannot cater to the 0.001%. Take for example the lower end of the oscilloscope business. It is flooded with Rigols, Siglents, and others. Customers like the low prices and apparently don't complain about the missing service manuals.
Take another example. A customer decides to do a DIY repair, ruins an otherwise repairable assembly, then sends it in for factory repair on a fixed price quote while pretending that they had no idea what happened. Factories can absorb a small amount of that, but not too much. The worst case scenario is when an independent repair shop inserts itself between the customer and the factory. Then the blame game starts as to how the product was ruined, why it's so expensive to repair, and who is responsible.
Hobby and professional don't mix well in this world. They can coexist, but the rules are different for the two.
Vladan

Chuck,
Again, I truly don't understand why you are here if you are not a proponent of right to repair.? This whole group existing is the definition of right to repair.? Being a proponent of right to repair doesn't necessarily mean legislation.? I think that is what you are getting stuck on.? Lemme guess you are one of those government regulation = bad folk?
I already said legislation isn't the best way.? We need to come together as a society and agree that the current way we are doing things isn't working and it needs to change.? Ideally that happens before it requires bad legislation.
Earlier you stated you're here to tell people when a repair is economically viable.? Well that ain't your decision to make. Your example that you gave about you building a lightbulb perfectly proves my point.? For you, repairing a lightbulb might be economically viable.? For me it may not be as I have never tried to build one.? Its not up to the manufacturer to decide what is economically viable.? It is up to the customer.? Why? Because they bought the damn thing!? It is theirs and they should be able to repair it where ever and however they please. The point is that manufacturers are making that near impossible.? It is getting to the point where in some cases you cannot go anywhere else but them to repair your equipment.? I already said it is not just service manuals and schematics they are refusing.? It is very common in my industry for manufacturers of lab equipment to REFUSE to sell spare parts directly to customers.? Under the guise that only their 'qualified techs' can perform the repair.
The statement that ' The only one that can economically repair most of these boards is the manufacturer' is also hilarious. Do you actually believe that? Economically repairable to whom? The customer?
You stating you use a 6100N programmer clearly shows how out of touch you are (not a bad programmer its actually on my wishlist for older gear). Today you can flash/program an MCU for $20. Free software, a UART/I2C-USB adapter, and the datasheet and you can perform most programming of today's MCUs. Which goes back to my point - with the correct knowledge, the average consumer has these tools available to them.
-Frank

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 2:52 PM, Peter Gottlieb

<hpnpilot@...> wrote:

Maybe it's the programming and writing which keep his mind sharp.


On 8/27/2024 11:16 AM, n4buq via groups.io wrote:
> Wow.? 82 years old, still competent? with software skills, and can write a
> very cogent and easy to follow message.? I'm impressed.? I hope that in 11
> more years, I'm still here and can do as well.
>
> Barry - N4BUQ
>
>? ? Asking for a friend, his words:
>? ? About 30 years ago I started using MathCAD for most of my calculations.
>
>? ? It used standard algebraic display of equations - which after Fortran
>? ? seemed so easy ....
>
>? ? I eventually got MathCAD 7 for use with my consulting work? - Was great !
>
>? ? Many years later, I bought MathCAD 13 - and found - to my dismay - that
>? ? they (Mathsoft) had not made it backward compatible !
>
>? ? All my old files needed to be seriously modified!? ---- So I stayed with
>? ? Version 7 .
>
>? ? My MathCAD 7 was the "standard" version - not the "Professional" version
>? ? - although both used the same manual !
>
>? ? Some functions were not available in my standard version - in
>? ? particular, "DO" loops !
>
>? ? I managed for years without them --- but then, about 3 years ago, my
>? ? requirement for large iterative calculations got to be basically
>? ? impossible using my "work-arounds".
>
>? ? I am 82 years old - and not keen to learn a whole new language --- so I
>? ? wondered if I could buy an old "used" version of? Mathcad 7
>? ? "professional" ? Is such a thing done?
>
>? ? I would hope to put it on my Windows 10 system computer - just the way I
>? ? did with my old, standard, MathCAD 7 version.
>
>? ? ??With my old standard version, I simply transferred the old file into
>? ? the new computer, using the same file file structure, onto the C drive
>? ? of the new machine - and it worked !
>
>? ? No fancy installation with codes and passwords required - I was amazed !
>
>? ? If anyone can help me to acquire? the "Professional" version, I`m happy
>? ? to pay for the? file and the service. Ron.
>? ? Failing that can anyone suggest a modern software package with an easy
>? ? learning curve to replace the MathCad 7 Professional?
>? ? Preferably something without being locked into passwords, auto-billing,
>? ? and endless updates that prevent work being done (like Microsoft's products).
>? ? Bear in mind all his old files will have to be edited.
>? ? I realize this is likely to open a can of worms so please be objective to
>? ? the requirements.
>? ? PeterB
>
>

Wow.? 82 years old, still competent? with software skills, and can write a very cogent and easy to follow message.? I'm impressed.? I hope that in 11 more years, I'm still here and can do as well.

Barry - N4BUQ

Asking for a friend, his words:
About 30 years ago I started using MathCAD for most of my calculations.

It used standard algebraic display of equations - which after Fortran
seemed so easy ....

I eventually got MathCAD 7 for use with my consulting work? - Was great !

Many years later, I bought MathCAD 13 - and found - to my dismay - that
they (Mathsoft) had not made it backward compatible !

All my old files needed to be seriously modified!? ---- So I stayed with
Version 7 .

My MathCAD 7 was the "standard" version - not the "Professional" version
- although both used the same manual !

Some functions were not available in my standard version - in
particular, "DO" loops !

I managed for years without them --- but then, about 3 years ago, my
requirement for large iterative calculations got to be basically
impossible using my "work-arounds".

I am 82 years old - and not keen to learn a whole new language --- so I
wondered if I could buy an old "used" version of? Mathcad 7
"professional" ? Is such a thing done?

I would hope to put it on my Windows 10 system computer - just the way I
did with my old, standard, MathCAD 7 version.

??With my old standard version, I simply transferred the old file into
the new computer, using the same file file structure, onto the C drive
of the new machine - and it worked !

No fancy installation with codes and passwords required - I was amazed !

If anyone can help me to acquire? the "Professional" version, I`m happy
to pay for the? file and the service. Ron.
Failing that can anyone suggest a modern software package with an easy
learning curve to replace the MathCad 7 Professional?
Preferably something without being locked into passwords, auto-billing,
and endless updates that prevent work being done (like Microsoft's products).
Bear in mind all his old files will have to be edited.
I realize this is likely to open a can of worms so please be objective to
the requirements.
PeterB

On Aug 27, 2024, at 2:09?PM, Dave McGuire via groups.io <mcguire@...> wrote:

?On 8/27/24 17:02, Dave Miller wrote:

Has anyone figured out what this artifact is in the corners of the 70205A.
It almost looks to me like the EMI screen corrosion that occurs on the R&S FSEx and CMU units.
I have hmmm several ;-) with same defect.
In fact I don?€?t think I have one without the issue.

This looks like what has become known as "cataracts". The PVA glue used to adhere the implosion shield to the CRT glass has deteriorated.

It can be fixed, but it's not easy and it's a bit dangerous. I have done it on many CRTs in my work at the museum, and back at "work work" I've done it on one 70205A CRT. If you google "CRT cataract repair" you'll see a million hits about it.

-Dave

--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA

On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 1:29 PM, Frank Mashockie

<fmashockie@...> wrote:

Yea I apologize Roy.? In fairness, the OPs original post title was 'What happened to HP/Agilent detailed circuit schematics'.? So it lent itself to this discussion.? Though I know he did have a specific question about a piece of equipment buried in there.? I will stop my ranting after that last post.

?

-Frank

?