What is the lifetime of common parts/circuits these days ? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / beginners

author: MathWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2024, 11:53:25 pm
content: I was watching a review of a bad/good movie 'Battlefield Earth', and in it they find some +1,000 year old fighter jets that still work perfect after sitting for that long.Take for example, some BJT RC oscillator I soldered up, with cheap metal film resistors, cheap 50V ceramic caps, and some TO-92 BJT's.So how long might something like that last, if it was only powered up to test it, and then it just sits in climate controlled roomtemp box. Maybe it should be Lead-lined too.Maybe some of the Lead/Tin solder would be the 1st thing to change, with tin whiskers. But what about common unpowered parts, like above ? What about common 8-pin DIP op-amps ?IDK how long it takes for plastics or cermaics to change/breakdown. And molecules from the air can make their way into the materials too, and vise-versa. And what would happen to the metal film over the centuries ??I would like to go 1,000yrs into the future and see what becomes of my little proto-board circuits.I know there's old salt mines that have been converted to storage vaults for various things like documents, movie films, etc. But does anyone know if there's any amount of tech stored in these places ? I know there's tech/computer museum's, but yeah I wonder how much is in some secure vault, meant to last as long as possible.

author: retiredfeline
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 12:01:16 am
content: I don't think you can generalise, it depends very much on the component and how it was made. For example just read the repair threads where electolytic caps are routinely swapped out. On the other hand I have put half-century old ICs to use. Then also take into account the complexity of the circuit and how single failures can affect its operation.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 12:11:57 am
content: In a climate controlled environment, I'd imagine most electronics would last indefinitely.So a related question might be, how long can one maintain a climate controlled environment with zero human intervention?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 12:20:38 am
content: There isn't much electronics around today that will be functioning in 100 years, let along 1000. Most MCU makers target 100 years operation for flash memory integrity, but corrosion and other chemical degradation means few products using those MCUs are likely to be functioning in 100 years. Rust never sleeps. Things degrade whether used or not. They degrade faster in poor storage conditions. They just go down hill faster when used, especially if they run hot.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 12:25:04 am
content: I think harriers could do it, their made in England after all.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 01:14:37 am
content: I agree it will be a case by case thing. And depends a lot on what you mean by controlled environment. A controlled oxygen and water free environment at absolutely constant temperature would mostly eliminate corrosion and fatigue failure from thermal cycling. But over thousand year time scales diffusion gets to all sorts of things. On your fight jets any rubber seals around the canopy, or on oxygen masks are likely to be very different than on day of manufacture. That is a long time for the pot shots taken by cosmic rays to matter. I doubt anything complex would last that long.The real question is where would you find anyone that knew how to use them? Or even could read the fantastic documentation that exists and was stored on some medium that still could be figured out and used.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 01:39:40 am
content: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/mechanical-engineering/does-a-spring-under-constant-tension-age/

author: ledtester
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 04:55:49 am
content: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a22506/worlds-longest-running-battery-176-years/

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 05:06:38 am
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messageshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_futurescroll down to human constructs on that pageit gives some insight on materialsthat memory crystal should be around for a while.The first section gives some insight on atomic matter (starting at 2*10^36 AD)

author: Solder_Junkie
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 07:07:48 am
content: A more realistic goal is to build circuits that will last for your lifetime. Few, if any, worry about whether a circuit is still going to work in several centuries time.I guess like many who have been in home building of electronic projects for many years, I still have projects that were built by myself around 50 years ago that work just as well as when first built. Clearly parts subject to excessive heat can be a problem and print boards benefit from a conformal coating (PCB lacquer). Old fashioned tin/lead solder is not a problem, neither have ordinary electrolytic capacitors failed in any of my projects.Common problems that I come across include tantalum bead capacitors from the 1970 era that have a tendency to fail short circuit, and tin plated connectors that tarnish (especially EPROMs in test equipment). LCD displays appear to be an issue in a lot of equipment and some 7 segment LED displays have failed.For those worried about the choice of parts and have deep pockets, you can buy wider temperature rated components that are industrial/military grade, use gold plated print boards and connectors, and directly solder ICs into boards... in many cases it's not worth the hassle and extra cost.SJ

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 07:21:44 am
content: Side question: does it make sense to collect vintage computers like the C64 or the PET? Even if you have a working unit, how long will it continue to work, before failing? Like the CIA failed by itself due to oxidation (hello Intel)...

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 08:22:40 am
content: Quote from: Bicurico on August 11, 2024, 07:21:44 amDepends?Collecting is not necessarily about having the item in a working condition.And if you do want the item in working condition then you shouldn't be caring about it being "pristine" as that may not be possible - if for nothing else because the plastics will be worn/brittle/broken, things will be yellowed, labels worn, etc. So you will need to repair.For the unobtanium chips there are often modern replacements built using FPGAs, CPLDs and similar solutions, should the chip actually fail. Do your research for whatever device you want to get - unless it is something very obscure then it is likely someone has addressed a problem like that already. E.g. for the C64 CIA:https://1nt3r.net/j-cia/Even then it is usually possible to obtain a salvaged IC from China somewhere because millions of these things were made and our electronic waste is ending up in landfills there. Buy a several of them and at least one will be good. I have bought the AY-8910 sound generators like that - 10 chip lot cheaply from AliExpress, clearly labeled as not new/salvaged (= a chance they are actually not fakes, those are being sold as new). I have tested them - and all of them actually do work, but two seem to have some damage/problem with one of their channels. Good enough for me for the 10 bucks or so I have paid for the lot. I have picked the best one and used that to repair my ZX Spectrum.There are plenty of these machines around and working without issues, despite being decades old after one does the basic maintenance (cleaning, replacing old capacitors in power switching supplies, etc.). That one chip commonly fails doesn't mean that all of them will fail or that all of them fail before X years. So nobody can answer you a question like that.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 08:26:06 am
content: If it's a power supply in an LG OLED TV apparently it's 3.5 years as I found out yesterday. You know warranty time and just a little bit.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 10:08:04 am
content: Quote from: MathWizard on August 10, 2024, 11:53:25 pmMost of modern electronics is designed to failure within 1 year. If it works longer, then just feel lucky.Did you hear about new Intel technology? Their 13/14 Gen CPU live for just several months...

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 10:16:44 am
content: Quote from: MathWizard on August 10, 2024, 11:53:25 pmIt depends on they type of ceramic capacitors? The higher energy density types tend to lose capacitance over time, even when not used. IF you've used ones with a C0G dielectric then they should last forever.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 11:12:38 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 11, 2024, 10:08:04 amYou forgot 1 to 2 zeros...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 11:42:33 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 11, 2024, 08:26:06 amLG frequently throw in a 5 year warranty during promotions, so I assume they expect more than 3.5 years of life in general. On the other hand, we have an LG TV that had a one year warranty, and they wanted a crazy monthly fee to extend the warranty on that.

author: MrAl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 11:50:14 am
content: Hello,I've wondered the same thing about those spring clamps. These are the things you squeeze the handle and the jaws open, then you place the jaws on something you want to clamp and when you release the handles the jaws close and clamp the object or objects with the force of the built in spring.I've had one clamped to a shelf one time and one day without warning the plastic on one of the jaws broke and the clamp went flying. If it hit someone in the face it could have been a big problem. The shelf wood thickness was not especially thick either maybe 3/4 of an inch thick and the clamp was not especially small either maybe the 5 inch type.I figure the plastic of the jaws get fatigued over time and crack, then break right off. That's when they are under tension from the spring, and the spring can be quite heavy duty and so very strong. I noticed the plastic on some of these clamps seems to be of a better quality than others. I have seen several clamp jaws break from the same cheaper set while none of the ones from a slightly more expensive set never broke.

author: BILLPOD
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 12:56:51 pm
content: Good Morning Everyone, I read through this thread carefully, but I didn't seeMTBF mentioned. Don't datasheets of components have this information any longer

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 01:06:45 pm
content: Anything with flash memory/eeprom etc. won't last indefinitely whatever conditions you store it in. Pretty much everything has a MCU in it these days, and maskrom isn't nearly as common as it used to be

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 01:09:50 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on August 11, 2024, 01:06:45 pmMasked MCUs are become quite rare. Most new product ranges just don't bother with them. Its all flash, either with a pump so it can self program, without a pump to save die area, or serial flash.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 01:33:13 pm
content: But chances are not that bad that an industrial grade MCU that´s specified for 80'000h (ca. 10years) at 105°C will keep it´s memory even for 100years at normal operating/storage conditions.Flash of this kind can not be compared to the extremely GB/$ optimized SSD or SD-card memory.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 02:02:21 pm
content: ATmega's flash memory:- 20 years at 85 °C- 100 years at 25 °C

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 06:10:30 pm
content: Speaking as an ex-Reliability Engineer, there are remarkably few ageing mechanisms in modern electronics. In the past we had tin whiskering in some transistors, and wet electrolytics drying out. Oh, and ESD zaps to CMOS chips often induced a rapid ageing effect causing them to fail weeks or months later. Sometimes a couple of years. Plus, obviously, vacuum tubes, CRTs, VFDs, tungsten filament bulbs, Nixie tubes - they all had well-understood ageing mechanisms.Nowadays it will almost all be down to the environment (including the operating environment). Thermal cycling can disconnect lead-outs. Mechanical vibration can cause fatigue failures in leaded components. Any humidity over 0% has the potential to cause corrosion of the metallic parts. We should also recognise that most memory technologies have a (theoretically) limited retention time (although back when it was specified as 10 years, many such chips are still doing their job decades later). Exposure to UV, even tiny amounts, will eventually soften the storage elements in a windowed chip. High energy particles from outer space can "soften" the data in EPROMs and flash memory.Ensuring a device is never operated outside its safe operating area is also very important, but the damaging effects don't just instantly appear on the wrong side of the SOAR line and disappear just inside it, so it is wise to staywellwithin the safe operating area.In general, assuming those factors (and others I have forgotten) are adequately addressed, there are little or no detectable ageing effects. This is actually amazing, and almost unique in the world of technology.By the way,this does not mean they will last forever. Most devices have an intrinsic failure rate, with such failures manifesting as statistically random. Ageing manifests as anincreasein the failure rate as time passes. Monitoring the failure rate over a sufficiently large population allows these measures to be meaningful and helpful in deciding when to retire the product being monitored. An aircraft engine, for example.EDIT: I forgot to mention packaging. Modern plastic packages are not considered as hermetically sealed (at least not by designers of equipment that must be as reliable and durable as possible). This includes spacecraft, military equipment, undersea cable repeaters. Oh, and automotive electronics as well, due to there being some potential safety aspects. Ceramic packaging can meet the requirements for hermetically sealed, which is why such high reliability and durability electronics can be expensive.Finally, we must not forget the soldered joint. A perfectly-made joint shows virtually no ageing, but even small imperfections can get worse as oxygen and water vapour go to work (plus mechanical disturbance, of course).

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 06:11:51 pm
content: Quote from: BILLPOD on August 11, 2024, 12:56:51 pmMTBF does not address ageing effects. It is a measure of the intrinsic steady-state failure rate.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 06:17:09 pm
content: Quote from: madires on August 11, 2024, 02:02:21 pmThis is both good news and bad news. Good chances for 100 years, though it is based on extrapolation of known failure modes. Bad news is that there are undoubtedly unknown unknowns and it is still a long way from 1000 years.I have had relatively good luck with fifty year old stuff working, but often requires clean up of switches and pots, and sometimes electrolytic capacitors. Luck has been much worse for gear 75 years and older.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 06:27:39 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 11, 2024, 06:17:09 pm

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 06:33:10 pm
content: Quote from: madires on August 11, 2024, 02:02:21 pmThose are common figures, although many parts try to keep that 100 year figure at higher temperatures. What is doesn't tell you is a quirk of flash. Some small percentage, maybe 0.01%, of devices will see a bit or two drain within months, due to crystal flaws.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2024, 10:05:49 pm
content: Quote from: Phil1977 on August 11, 2024, 11:12:38 amThis may be true for equipment manufactured 10-20 years ago, but not for modern one...

author: MathWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 12:06:05 am
content: The oldest stuff I own are vacuum tube radio's and an oscilloscope. So the old carbon resistor's were drifting, and of course I replaced all the electrolytics, but yeah I should measure some of the ceramic's. I don't much trust the insulation in older transformers tho, I've had one go bad.I've seen a lot urban explorer video's, where they go to places full of old electrical equipment, some of it still powered and working.And as someone that's played video games like the Fallout series, in a post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland, I'd want to go around trying to restore everything.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 12:27:02 am
content: Quote from: MathWizard on August 12, 2024, 12:06:05 amThese who get high radiation dose and have proper medical treatment can live about 1-3 month.I'm afraid if you survive there will no be medical treatment, no clean food, no clean water, no electricity, etc.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 02:31:36 am
content: Quote from: janoc on August 11, 2024, 06:27:39 pm

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 06:31:31 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 11, 2024, 10:05:49 pmEngineering has not changed a lot over the last decades.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 06:49:02 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 12, 2024, 12:27:02 amIf you want to have a realistic idea about a post-nuke society then look "Threads", not "Fallout". (Though later is much more fun.)And to come back on-topic, yeah, people should also try that civilization survives the next 1000 years. Who else should finally answer this thread???

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 08:57:57 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 12, 2024, 02:31:36 amYes and? How is that indicative of anything made today, from different materials, using different processes, with different constraints, operating under different conditions?Even the electrolytic caps don't have the same failure modes - the 50+ year old ones if they are bad (and many are just fine!) are mostly just dried out. In many cases they work fine after reforming, because they were under minimal stress and non-criticial in those circuits anyway. When modern ones fail it is in 90% of cases bulging/leaking from high ESR caused heating because they operate in switchmode supplies with high ripple. Something pretty much unheard of 50+ years ago.So you are still extrapolating from data that is possibly completely irrelevant to the construction and use of your componentstoday. That's a bit like people who go and destroy even otherwise perfectly good hardware by "recapping it" because that's the only thing they know - it is always the capacitors, right? Never mind that the caps they are replacing are e.g. polymer or tantalum capacitors that don't have at all the same failure modes and are not even relevant to the fault they are seeing ...That's not to say that the modern components or devices will fare better over the span of 50,100 or even 1000 years. Certainly not, most of them, esp. consumer gear, are designed to barely last through the warranty, which was not the case with the massively built equipment from the 50s and 60s. Where often the tubes were the thing that usually failed first due to the limited lifetime of them but the hardware itself was designed to last decades - like furniture (which it often was - e.g. old radios or TV sets).So the correct answer is - we literally don't know and we will only discover how well we did once we arrive there.Stuff like dried out lubricants are an easy fix compared to failed semiconductors that can't be sourced anymore.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 09:16:51 am
content: Sometimes it´s even worse.I´ve heard the rumor (can't proof it with citations) that the tanks of the Saturn-rockets for the Apollo-missions have been made of a certain high tensile stress steel foil that is not in production any more. And even if you would find a company that "cooks" the steel after the old recipe and manages to deliver an in-spec steel foil, then there would be no single company any more that knows how to handle this type of steel in the right manner.What does it mean: Each era of human history has it´s technologies that they master at this time. Preserving an "active" technology for future use will always mean you have to spend resources on that and you have to preserve the knowledge of the workers by letting them continue what they are trained on. Else you just loose this technology.We can't build the pyramids as the old Egyptians have done today, (maybe) we can't just build a new Saturn 5 today but we have falcon 9, 3nm-nodes and flatscreens everywhere. It´s just evolution.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 10:28:25 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 11, 2024, 10:08:04 amI think this is just nonsense. It's extremely difficult to design something to fail after a certain time. Obviously you can design something to fail - that bit is easy, just under-specify capacitor voltage ratings, resistor power ratings, or over-volt your chips. But to design something that works for around a year andthenfails?Well, how wouldyoudo it? Electronic components aren't aware of the passage of time. You can't tell a resistor "work for 12 months, then burn out". Obviously you could install a software bomb if you are using a microcontroller, but that would be better described as sabotage rather than failure.So you tell me - how do you design an electronic widget that will fail after a year? And how would it differ from one you've designed to last, say, three years? How will your widget know when to fail?Honestly, it's easier just to design something that works, and whose life is limited by the intrinsic failure rate of the components. Yes, you can deliberately push the safe operating areas and expect to lower the MTBF, but how far would you push them to get a failure after 12 months? That's a proper question I'm asking you to answer.The lack of ageing mechanisms in modern components makes such a task a major challenge.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 11:37:56 am
content: Quote from: MathWizard on August 10, 2024, 11:53:25 pmI dont think that you would ever get to worry about the electronics.1000 year old jet fuel would have deteriorated to unusability.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 11:48:47 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 12, 2024, 10:28:25 amWhile the 1 year is a hyperbole, I kind-of agree with the general statement. Why do you think Volkswagen has tens of thousands of engineers? It's not to be able to make cars that don't break down, we figured that out in the 1980s. It's so your turbocharger breaks one day out of warranty.Now things might seem to change with subscriptions, to become worse. Your things will break down the moment it cannot find the mothership or you stop paying.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 12:05:59 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 12, 2024, 11:48:47 amThat´s just nonsense.True is that thousands of engineers try to make production of the car cheaper. For that reason they may reduce the quality of parts that are too good for their requirements - no one pays the supplier for exceeding what's wanted.Anyhow the lifetime targets are usually in the range of 10years. And there are good economic reasons to do this, because if you set the lifetime target of all car components to 10years, then you anyhow risk having some things fail during warranty or while the leasing contracts are running.Of course, you could set the quality standards in a way that the car lasts 25 years and a million km. But nearly no single customer would like to pay this.

author: MrAl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 12:33:31 pm
content: Back in the 1980's MTBF was considered to be longer with less connections. In other words, something with more connections would be assumed to fail sooner than something with less connections. That's external connections though, external to the IC chip or transistor. So a chip with 16 pins would be assumed to fail sooner than a chip with 8 pins.The thing that worries me most though is not the longevity as much as the designs themselves. I have seen a lot of poor designs over the past 20 years. They just suck really bad, and the assumed workings do not play out.Microwave ovens for example. I have not had a single 'inverter' microwave oven work the way it should, or the way you think it should work. For example, both my Panasonic and my Toshiba do not use the "inverter technology" to cook below power level 3 (with power levels 1 through 10). That means that power levels 1 and 2 do the PULSE on and off thing to get to a lower power, exactly what a non inverter oven does for all power levels. That's a big problem even though it may sound not so bad. The problem is that while it is pulsing it STILL burns the crap out of the food. Heating a slice of pizza for example the Toshiba on power level 1 (lowest power) will apply 700 watts of cooking power to one little slice of pizza on and off. It's 'on' for 20 seconds and 'off' for 40 seconds. The problem is that during that 20 seconds it still hits the slice with 700 watts of cooking power which still burns the pizza. It has to be a more gentle cooking power like 350 watts maybe even lower. There's no way in hell to get that oven to power down to anything under 700 watts pulsed. The Panasonic did a little better with a power of 500 min, and pulsing for less time such as 10 seconds on and 20 seconds off.The power settings are very bad and the time settings are a nightmare as well. You only get to set the time in the increments that they provide you cannot choose any time. We are talking here about $250 to $300 price point ovens too not the run of the mill $100 unit. But even the $30 to $100 microwave ovens will pulse for less time than the Toshiba, which is nuts, and give you full control of the time (such as if you want to set it for 2:01 instead of 2:00 minutes).I think there is an Oster microwave oven that does go all the way down to level 1 with the inverter but that's the only one I've seen so far.Who the hell is designing these ovens that's what I'd like to know. They obviously do not know what it takes to cook and heat items in a microwave oven. I suppose they got their college degrees at ShopRite.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 01:21:40 pm
content: Quote from: Phil1977 on August 12, 2024, 12:05:59 pmHere is some statistics for a VW Jetta:https://caredge.com/volkswagen/golf-gti/maintenance#more-infoThe sales price (in the US, I don't like European prices as there is soo much tax on them) is 22000 USD.Consider that VW will make somewhere around 10% or 2000 USD on the sales. I've added together the maintenance costs for 12 years, that came up to 8000 USD. Profit on repairs is generally considered 50% or more, so VW makes twice as much on repairs than the sale of the car. Over 12 years.We are not talking about companies from England, or Pegueot, that doesn't know how to build reliable cars. But if you really want to see something, check out the BMWs on that website. And ask yourself, how can Lexus give 10 year warranty.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 01:24:54 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 12, 2024, 01:21:40 pmThis site states that 4% of the TCO of a golf GTI are maintenance. And that´s exactly the reason why no customer would like to pay 20% more for a more reliable car that probably is also heavier and less powerful.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 02:52:12 pm
content: Quote from: Phil1977 on August 12, 2024, 12:05:59 pmIndeed. The thing is, cars are a poor example in terms of the OP's question, which was about the lifespan ofelectroniccomponents and devices. Cars are different because they have loads of mechanical parts, and those haveloadsof well-understood ageing mechanisms.I had an acquaintance who worked for Siemens in Canada. They make lots and lots of components and modules for cars. He explained to me that the generally expected service life of a car is around 4000 hours, which sounds scarily short (less than 6 months). But in reality it means 120,000 to 160,000 miles when the vehicles overall average speed is 30 to 40 miles per hour. Most of the components are specced to meet that lifespan. He gave me an interesting example of a BMW component he was working on - a radiator fan (I can't remember the model of car). The specified service life that BMW wanted was 1000 hours. Now this doesnotmean the car will need four radiator fans in its life; rather, it means that BMW expected the fan to run about 25% of the time the car is in use. At the same time he was developing a fan for Ford, who wanted 1500 hours. He said the Ford most likely has a lower bonnet profile and shallower grill, requiring the fan to run more often.Unlike electronic components, mechanical ones are very predictable in terms of ageing. Friction, wear and tribology are well understood. The lifespan of the brushes used in a DC motor can be predicted with great accuracy. Ball and roller bearings have charts published by the manufacturer showing how the bearings ages with load and usage pattern. The piston rings, camshafts and followers use exceptionally well-controlled materials and manufacturing processes in order to meet the designed durability. Toothed cambelts are so familiar by now that their life can be predicted with confidence, although they are slightly different as they are considered to be a consumable. Plain bearings, like rolling element bearings, are extremely well understood and easy to design for a particular lifespan.The only really serious cock-ups that have occurred in recent decades arose from the innovative use of new materials. Everything from cam chain tensioners and thermostat housings to complete, variable-length inlet manifolds were re-engineered in plastic, and it is true to say that many unanticipated failures occurred. Jaguar got burned in the late 1990s when they introduced plastic cam chain guides and tensioners. At the next revision they went back to using aluminium.It is important to point out that the 4000 hour lifespan of a car doesnotmean it's scrap after that time. Rather, it means that the overall failure rate will go up as the various components come the the end of their design life. It is often feasible and cost effective to keep the car going for significantly longer.So yes: designing mechanical devices like cars, aircraft, even spaceships for a particular service life is possible, even routine. But electronic components have so few ageing mechanisms (but not none) that designing them to fail after a given amount of service is extremely difficult, and for most purposes impractical.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 03:17:35 pm
content: I in no way meant to imply that performance of 75 year old gear was useful in predicting life of current gear. More intended to show our lack of knowledge. Both ways. I doubt anyone 75 years ago seriously thought the gear would still be working. But it often is. And the weaknesses that were known then didn't include all the failure modes that have turned up.I do think it is naive to say that current components have no aging mechanisms. No known aging mechanisms, maybe. Or at least none in a sufficiently benign environment. Anyone who has ever operated equipment on as equatorial oceanic Beach knows there are aging mechanisms. Which just returns us to the problem of maintaining a sufficiently benign environment over 1000 years. And the problems we know about their are very, very difficult and there is much we don't know

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 03:28:28 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 12, 2024, 02:52:12 pmI think cars are a pretty good example. The infotainment in modern cars is so central to key operations, like heating and cooling, that you can't really use the car without it. They generally won't repair them, and they cost thousands of dollars to replace. Our neighbour just had an electronics failure in a 6 year old VW Polo. The quote to fix was 2500 pounds. They looked around at third parties, who said they couldn't get parts to fix it, and would also need to charge 2500 for a complete replacement. That's quite a hit in a car that is only worth about 4 times that with a working infotainment system. If it failed a bit further down the road it would have been a write off issue. This would not be a big deal if these failures were rare. However, if you look at the annual statistics some of the third party warranty companies publish, these things are not just expensive, they fail quite a lot. With things like emergency braking becoming mandated, you won't even be legally able to drive a car with some of the electronics not functioning properly. I think this is just the kind of development the car makers must love.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 05:08:53 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 12, 2024, 03:28:28 pmI believe you have misunderstood my point.Of coursethe electronics in cars behave like electronics everywhere. That is to say, the ageing mechanisms are few and far between.Veryfew. Electronics can still fail, despite having hardly any ageing mechanisms. Perhaps you are confusing ageing with intrinsic failure rates.But a car is much more than electronics. It is a complex machine with a lot of mechanical parts. And the reason a car is a bad analogy is because all these mechanical partsdohave numerous ageing mechanisms, all of which are well understood. It is easy to design in a specific service life to these mechanical components, and it is easy to predict when they will wear out. Neither of these apply to electronic components.So yes, you can compare car electronics to any other electronics and say they are analogous. But youcannotusefully compare the mechanical elements of a car with electronics in general, because they have almost nothing analogous.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 05:33:54 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 12, 2024, 03:17:35 pmTrust me, it isn't naive. People like me spend a whole career studying reliability and failure modes at all levels in a system, from individual semiconductor junctions to vastly complex systems like a spacecraft or an international telecommunications network.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 12, 2024, 03:17:35 pmWell, I guess I could live with that. But maybe you didn’t read my earlier post fully. I did explain in detail that nowadays the operating environment totally swamps any intrinsic ageing effects. Environmental stress is not the same as ageing. For a great example of environmental stress, drop your electronic device into a bowl of salty water. It will almost certainly fail, and quickly. But this isdamage, not ageing. Same as putting it in an oven (which is what an equatorial beach might resemble) - it is very likely that temperatures beyond those expected by the designers will push components out of their safe operating areas. But again, this is damage, not ageing. Be assured that itispossible to design electronics to operate at very high (or low) temperatures for a long time.The OP was asking about how long electronic components and systems will last. I responded by saying that many of the ageing mechanisms common in older devices are understood and largely eliminated in modern devices. I then explained that electronic devices will still fail - they all have an intrinsic failure rate - and environmental stress can greatly increase that failure rate. Indeed, the operating environment is by far the most important factor. But thetime-relatedincreases in failure rates - that is to say, ageing - are rare. Not non-existent (LEDs age, for example), but rare. Very rare. I hope I've expressed that more clearly now.

author: Messtechniker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 05:37:54 pm
content: I expect electronics including my own to work without problems for 10 years or so.After that and within the next 10 years I expect some problemswhich can be repaired. Beyond 20 years I don't expect anything.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 05:39:03 pm
content: Oh, and MTBFs and MTTFs don't address the lifespan of a device. They address the intrinsic failure rate.Suppose a device has a 10 year MTBF. What do you think is the probability of it lasting 10 years before it fails? If you don’t know the answer, you will be surprised!

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 06:39:42 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 12, 2024, 05:08:53 pmI believe you have misunderstood my point. The car industry was always going to embrace a lot of electronics in cars. However, they have chosen to package it in ways where its particular reliability characteristics suit their desire to make cars reliable enough to not be too much of a PITA, but create a "not worth fixing it" moment that stops them surviving too long. The electronics in a car in very modular, with little MCU circuits distributed through practically every area. A nice car may have 100 of them these days. The central display and UI part could have been a modestly priced thing, that you could change like replacing a tablet. In fact, in many cars it looks like a tablet. However, it has been constructed as a module that costs thousands of dollars to replace. I think that is neither an inevitable consequence of a car's design, or an accident.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 10:10:57 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 12, 2024, 06:39:42 pmI'm probably not quite as cynical as you about the motives underlying their design decisions. But even if you are correct, we have wandered well away from the ageing mechanisms pertaining to electronic components, which is what the OP was asking about.In terms of replacement costs for the electronic modules in a car, I agree with you: they are outrageous. You sometimes are faced with a "not worth fixing" moment, but that is usually because of the ridiculous cost of the parts rather than any crafty "designed to fail" strategy. Furthermore, you are quite often forced to use a main dealer because the car won't just accept a replacement module - it has to be configured before the rest of the car systems will talk to it. A bit like "signing" a file. And I'm pretty sure they would refuse to "sign" a second hand module from a scrapyard. I've no idea why they do this, but you are right: a perfectly good car might be scrapped simply for want of a small electronic module for which you must find a thousand pounds, maybe two. It is unacceptable, in my opinion, but we have no real way of avoiding it, except by buying a vintage car with no electronics in it (OK, maybe electronic ignition).

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 10:18:04 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 12, 2024, 05:33:54 pmI'm sorry - it occurs to me that I've made a misleading statement. When I said "people like me" I meant Reliability Engineers. I want to be clear that I did not spend my whole career as a Reliability Engineer.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 10:44:00 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 12, 2024, 05:39:03 pmMTBF is the inverse of the failure rate, and the failure rate is numerically equal to the probability that an individual item will fail within a given time interval (typically a year). So, an MTBF of 10 years means that 1/10 (ie 10%) of the items will fail within any given year, and there is a 10% chance that any particular item will fail in any given year.Start off with 100 items. 10% will fail in year 1, leaving 90 left. The next year another 10% will fail, leaving 81 left. Like this:Year 1: 90 leftYear 2: 81 leftYear 3: 73 leftYear 4: 66 leftYear 5: 59 leftYear 6: 53 leftYear 7: 48 leftYear 8: 43 leftYear 9: 39 leftYear 10: 35 leftSo you end up with only a 35% probability that a component will last as long as its stated MTBF, which is counter-intuitive to most people.This demonstration assumes that the items are not repaired, so it is more proper to refer to the MTTF (mean time to failure) rather than MTBF (mean time between failures). They are mathematically equivalent. The former is used for individual electronic components, because they are not repaired - they are discarded and replaced with a new one; the latter refers to electronic systems, because they are (potentially, at least) repaired and brought back into service.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2024, 11:00:23 pm
content: I could imagine an epoxy coated silvered mica capacitor lasting a thousand years provided there were no impurities trapped inside.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_mica_capacitor#/media/File:Silver_mica_capacitors.jpg

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 12:41:56 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 12, 2024, 10:18:04 pmI actually do respect your knowledge and experience. But will point out that people with similar experience predicted the space shuttle had less than one chance in ten thousand of a loss of life accident. When you go into unexplored territory no one has experience and there are holes in knowledge. 1000 plus years is unexplored territory (and jets fighters are not just silicon chips).

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 01:53:47 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 12, 2024, 10:28:25 amThat's pretty easy and no conspiracy here. Just a business...You can just skip some mandatory process steps during manufacturing electronic components or use more cheap materials. Modern technology can predict how it will affect lifetime pretty precise, with precision of weeks or even days.So, you can optimize manufacturing process in that way to get planned lifetime at minimal cost. And it appears that de-facto standard for electronics lifetime planning is about 1 year or even less.The goal is to manufacture product at min price and sell it at max price and and avoid expenses for RMA during guarantee period.Just a business...Regarding on how to make electronic components so short live, its not hard at all. For example skipping some steps during silicon manufacture can give you about a month of lifetime then it just fails and don't start anymore. Some technology like flash memory has very short lifetime by design.Some modern sdcards can retain the data with no power just for one year and has so small endurance that you can get total failure within one week or even less with just aggressive using it for writing the data.The issue with flash memory involve almost any microcontroller-powered device, almost all modern electronics. If you don't power it for years, it's just fails with zero time usage due to data loss on the flash memory.Cheap electrolytic capacitors lifetime is pretty short and dramatically reduced if you use it at high temperature. Almost all modern electronics is compact, it means that there is bad ventilation and manufacturer may "optimize" the cost by removing some mandatory thermal design measures to use less and more cheap materials and components. As result, capacitors lifetime is dramatically reduced.Not because conspiracy, just to reduce manufacturers expenses. Just a business...As result the more modern technology give us a total garbage junk products which looks very good at a glance...And unfortunately this issue affects not only consumer electronics, but also aircraft, space and military technology, just because almost all electronics become more and more cheap and turns into junk and there is no sense to manufacture good quality and long lifetime products, because it leads to bankruptcy. Officials helps to make things even much worse with regulations due to mafia corruption which they calling "green technology". So even if you want to find good quality and long lifetime products, you can't. Due to official regulations and simply because it is not profitable from a business point of view.That's why we have more and more aircraft failures and man-made disasters these days, even despite the very strict quality control management and the most stringent control processes in such areas like medical, aircraft, space, nuclear and military.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 05:55:06 am
content: There are just much too many unknown variables to "target" the lifetime precisely to a RMA deadline or anything like this.Just as examples, but not exhaustive:- How much is the device in use? One person uses the USB-C charger only during a few short trips for the smartphone, the other one charges his laptop and e-bike battery on a daily basis with 100W.- What´s the temperature? Is it used in Scandinavia or in the sun of the Mexican dessert?- How much EMI backfires at the device?- Is a PC used for hardcore gaming or for web browsing?- Is a car raced or stored?- Is a power tool used on construction sites or at a hobbyist?If you would know all these issues and more, you could predict the lifetime in days. But you don't know.Moreover: It´s easy to neglect all these points and build an unreliable product - but that will hurt your RMA rates. And last but not least, it´s not even true that the absolute worst case combination of the points above is the one to address. Sometimes also non-usage or too mild usage causes problems.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 08:37:10 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 12, 2024, 10:10:57 pmHere is a story for you, that will convince you that it's deliberate:Mercedes solders light bulbs into light assemblies. They don't place in them in sockets, it's soldered into a PCB. Your light goes out, you are not allowed to drive, police pulls you over, you fail inspection. You have to replace the entire assembly. And it's a smart assembly with CAN serial number hard coded into it, so you cannot buy a second hand one, you have to drive to a an authorized service to have it reprogrammed.A light bulb went out in my car, Toyota charged me 1.5 EUR to have it replaced, including work.At Mercedes? Up to 2000 EUR.You think electric cars will solve the issue because the engine is more reliable? Have I got news for you!

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 09:12:12 am
content: This damn stupid headlamp example...A LED in a modern car headlamp is just an electronic component like all others in the car. Do you also want to put all IC´s in the car in expensive and unreliable test sockets so that you can easily swap them, just in case?It´s the task of reliability engineers to make the LEDs last as long as everything around it. And yes, at some point a limit is reached and then so many things fail at once that it´s really not economic to repair it.That´s the real target of lifetime optimization: To *equalize* the endurance of all components. If -some day- all components are equally worn out, then it´s time for recycling.But coming back to the annoying headlamp example: The difference is: A halogen bulb is designed to fail early, so it must be exchangeable. Failing of a LED is practically the same as failing of a power transistor, a capacitor or anything else electronic. Usually it´s fault of the operating conditions that a LED runs hot and fails, but if the manufacturer ensures stable operating conditions then 10 000h to 100 000h of operation are feasible with light output of more than 80%.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 09:29:44 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 13, 2024, 01:53:47 amLook, I'm sorry, but I just think that entire text is completely wrong and nonsense. It seems like you can't or won't provide any authoritative references to support your claims or you'd have done that by now, so until you can do so it seems pointless to engage with you any further on these particular claims. I just want future readers of this thread to know that your assertions are in dispute by me. If you do provide the appropriate references, and I'm wrong, I will gladly say so.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 09:32:05 am
content: Quote from: Phil1977 on August 13, 2024, 09:12:12 amIt's not an LED. I was very specific when I said lightbulb. As in 12 V, wolfram and glass.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 09:35:49 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 13, 2024, 08:37:10 amThat's an excellent story and I agree that it does smell of planned failure. Not least because these are presumably filament bulbs? In that case their ageing mechanisms have been understood for 130 years or so. I believe normal filament bulbs have a designed service life of 1000 hours, although we don't really know if that applies to the Mercedes bulbs. I would think it does.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 09:43:21 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 13, 2024, 09:32:05 amSorry, my mistake. I´m just allergic to the story regarding LEDs because I hear it so frequently.Soldered in incandescents really have a bad taste.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 09:51:29 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 09:35:49 amhttps://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/index.php?threads/w211-rear-tail-light-bulb-replacement.142802/Here are some people discussing it for their older cars. So they've been doing this for about 20 years now.Remember the W124 from Mercedes, that lasts forever? Now we have this.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 09:58:08 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 13, 2024, 12:41:56 amOn that count we totally agree. I would make no claims at all regarding 1000 year timescales - they are totally outside my, or anyone else's, experience.Having said that, there are plenty of human artefacts older than 1000 years. Of course they don't have any electronics in them, but I mention it because it shows some materials can remain stable for at least that long, and very much longer. So although 1000 years sounds absurd for a jet fighter, maybe for simpler things it isn't inconceivable. For example, I definitely think it would be possible to make a WW2 aircraft last that long. In effect they are infinitely repairable.Which brings us to an important part of the 1000 years question: is maintenance and repair allowed during that time?I think it's the advent of electronics that really started the throw-away world we now live in. Unlike everything that went before, electronic components are basically unrepairable. Yes, in theory it might be possible to open up a failed semiconductor and repair it, but it would be so difficult we can probably say it is effectively impossible.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 10:08:09 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 13, 2024, 09:51:29 amI do find this really interesting. Do you think that Mercedes deliberately build failures into their cars in order to generate a revenue stream from the cars throughout their life? It does seem an extraordinary thing to do, but it's obviously possible.I just wonder why they aren't worried about damaging their reputation.The move to non-repairable modules began decades ago, but I assume it to be a cost reduction strategy rather than a revenue generator. What do you think?

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 10:14:31 am
content: Maybe it´s just a side effect of the standardized qualification procedures in car industry.Just assume one supplier got all the papers together to proof that its slightly undervolted and robustly made incandescents match the required failure rates for Mercedes. Then - in principle - it´s the right way for Mercedes to check these claims and make use of the cost savings that are possible without sockets and user serviceable compartments.If it´s always good to blindly trust these qualification procedures is another question. Especially in the field of accelerated ageing tests there are a lot of uncertainties.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 11:41:02 am
content: I remember back in the late '70s or early '80s there was a stink that got mentioned in the media at that time. The new Audi had rear lights where the red plastic lens was not removable, so if you crunched it in a parking mishap you had to replace the entire unit - reflector, lens, bulb holder - and it was expensive.I don't recall Audi offering any response, but it was a long time ago. I guess, but I don't know, that it was cheaper to dispense with the rubber seal and the two screws. Also, perhaps VW judged the higher repair costs could be borne more easily by the customers of their prestige brand, rather buyers of cheap VWs? I don't know - just speculating.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 11:52:08 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 11:41:02 amAnd now in the time of super expensive beam forming LED and laser headlights they ultrasonically weld all the light modules shut, and charge $1000 or more for a new one. Well, at least the ultrasonic welding reduces the chance of rain leaking into the light, but they sure aren't reliable. The number of Mercedes and Audis with faulty LED lights is appalling. I guess a lot of them are being replaced under warranty, but beyond that?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 12:06:03 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 10:08:09 amI think they just focus on a market where most people lease rather than buy. The initial buyers don't expect to keep the car beyond its warranty period, so they don't worry about the cost of fixing it, only the frequency of failures. This seems to be reaching a limit right now, though. Poor resale values for the leasing companies disposing of cars seems to be breaking this business model. Maybe they will have to swing back to things being replaceable in small, more reasonably priced pieces. There has always been a dynamic like this in the car market. If you sell huge numbers of cars in a market, and don't make small replacement parts available, third parties will enter the market to fix that. If you only sell a small number of cars in a market you keep your inventory of spare parts small, by stocking a few large chunks. Before BMWs were popular in the UK, dealers would never sell you things like a bearing, but a big seller like Ford would. You had to buy a big chunk of a BMW that included the bearing. We used to joke about their 2 spare part model - the front half of the car and the back half. Now BMW are a volume seller in the UK people can get things replaced in smaller increments.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 12:11:39 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 13, 2024, 12:06:03 pmVery good point about leasing - it does change the dynamic.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 12:35:24 pm
content: E.g. BMW has returned to swappable headlamp glasses BECAUSE of the leasing contracts.At least in Europe we have a lots of B2B-leasing contracts that include all insurance costs. Especially for these contracts BMW has recognized that repair costs must not be neglected. If repair costs are high then the B2B-customer must cut down on vehicle costs or vice-versa. So many parts that easily brake in small but frequent accidents get also designed for cheap replacement - at least for the high-volume models like 3 and 5 series.I know this story first hand from BMW but I´m quite sure it´s (mostly) the same for other brands.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 12:40:20 pm
content: Coincidentally, something new on my radar is that class II MLCC ceramic caps such as X7R, Y5V & Z5U degrade over time.We all know about the DC bias derating of MLCCs, but I wasn't aware of the aging issue.This aging varies significantly not only by dielectric, but also by manufacturer.Thankfully most of these caps are used in non-stringent applications such as AC coupling and DC decoupling, but there may be latent failures in waiting in marginal designs.https://youtu.be/yLuWcTo2cb4?si=A9nzO6_W9xLe6vnY

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 12:45:06 pm
content: Quote from: Phil1977 on August 13, 2024, 12:35:24 pmAre they doing anything about the ultrasonic sensors, radars, cameras, and so on, which have been driving up insurance repair costs?

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 12:50:38 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 13, 2024, 12:45:06 pmI do not know details, I just know from the glasses that they have statistics from the insurance companies and try to keep costs down. Though frankly spoken it´s for sure not a very high priority at many parts.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 01:02:47 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 13, 2024, 12:45:06 pmI don't think so. Tesla driving into a concrete post at 3kmh, 5000 EUR repair.Mercedes matrix headlights, apparently 7000 USD.https://www.audiworld.com/forums/q5-sq5-mki-8r-discussion-129/2018-matrix-headlights-%247-000-us%24-per-pair-2928438/BMW tire pressure sensor for one wheel cost more than a set of Continental tires for my car.I have no idea how anyone can offer insurances for these cars. Oh, wait, I know. Insurance companies just get everyone else to pay, driving up my insurance.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 01:18:45 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 13, 2024, 01:02:47 pmThat´s quite exactly half true. Most new cars and especially leased cars have full insurance and not only liability.But yes, if I could change the law I´d propose to limit liability to standard rates. But I can't change the law and that´s now absolutely offtopic

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 07:46:36 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 09:29:44 amMarking entire answer of your opponent as "completely wrong and nonsense" is a classic manipulation of fraudulent peoples. The purpose of such manipulation is attempt to "cancel" everything that you don't like without giving any reasonable arguments.Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 09:29:44 amYou asked how planned electronics lifetime can be done. And I answered you for that question.If you want to organize lawyer bullying for those who said things that are unpleasant for you and your business, do it with someone else.And now I understand your attempt to impose an opinion that planned short lifetime of electronics is impossible which is very stupid opinion from my point of view. Now I see why you well understand reliability testing processes, but at the same time "don't understand" pretty simple things. It appears that this is your business to get money on that. So I think this is completely pointless to continue discussion with you, because I'm sure you already well understand what I said and now I'm sure you know very well that things which I said is true.Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 09:29:44 amDon't worry, this is technical forum, so readers here are not stupid as you imagine and have already seen and well understand the real nature of your business.Those who come to such forums do not need orders on what to do, so just keep your orders to your subordinates.Your mistake is that you came on a technical forum, maybe on housewives' forum your attempt could be successful.And by the way attempt to use "authority reference" instead of logic is another manipulation which is often used by fraudulent peoples. That's pretty obvious when someone use logic explanation why 2*2=4, so it's very strange to ask for "authoritative references to support claims". It just show that you're not interested in logic explanation, but instead of that you're looking for a way to cancel claim that 2*2=4 despite the fact that you very well understand it's logically true claim.Those who really looking for answer will not say "all what you wrote is completely wrong and nonsense" in response to answer. They can ask for authority reference if they don't have enough knowledge in the area and want to use "faith" instead of knowledge to understand the logic explanation. But this is obvious not about you, because you already shown that you know reliability testing process very well.It just shows that internally you well understand and agree with all what I said, but this thing is not good for your business, so you decided to start use low manipulation techniques to "cancel" and hide it...I think Giordano Bruno can tell you many interesting things about "authoritative references" as a "science method" to approve something...

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 09:42:40 pm
content: My reply will be brief. You have not come even close to explaining exactly how you can design an electronic device to fail after one year, to an accuracy of weeks or even days (your claim!). You've just made some vague assertions about "missing out certain manufacturing stages".If you want to be taken seriously you need to come up with a far more detailed description of how you would go about delivering on such an extraordinary claim. Don't just say it can be done - show us the evidence.Until you do, I will continue to say that your claims are unfounded. The basis of my saying that is that I cannot find any evidence anywhere to support your claim. Of course you can shorten the life of any product just by under-specifying the components, as I've already said more than once. But to ensure it fails after exactly a year (within days of that) - well, the entire internet cannot offer any suggestions on how that might be achieved.The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Over to you....

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 10:29:32 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 09:42:40 pmIf my answer was not clear. I can repeat.In order to design electronic device which will fail after one year, you need to use components which will fail after 1 year.Is it clear enough?If you're interesting on how its possible to predict failure accuracy of weeks or even days, that's is easy. The components are manufactured in a large quantities and all series has very close quality and manufactured from the same materials and using the same equipment and the same process. Usually it was manufactured by robots with minimal human intervention. So their lifetime and probability to failure is within pretty small confidence interval. And if you know which component will fail after 1 year in average, you can use it to design device with predictable lifetime...Of course some device may work longer and some may fail earlier, that is allowed variation. As you understand, in total their average lifetime will be 1 year.If your plans for some device lifetime appears incorrect, you can fix that by replacing reliable components with less reliable or not reliable components with more reliable components. In that way you can extend or shorten electronic device lifetime as you wish. And use that case to investigate root of cause of a wrong estimation and implement measures to avoid it future. That's how quality control management works.The same if your product has too large lifetime variation you can investigate root of cause and apply process fix in order to get more predictable value.If you want someone share such plans for public, I'm afraid it is almost impossible. Because such information is usually confidential and covered with NDA, so it can't appears in public documentation.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 10:54:04 pm
content: And is it still your claim that "most" electronics are engineered in this way? To fail after a year or less? That it is routine practice for the designers to select components with a one year lifespan, test them to confirm that, substitute others if they don't fail quickly enough, and then push the result out to manufacturing?By the way, I know of no components with a lifespan of 1 year, unless you include old-fashioned things like filament bulbs. What type of components do you have in mind?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 11:11:25 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 10:54:04 pmYes, I see that the most of modern electronics has very short lifetime. That's true.So, it seems that shorten electronic product lifetime is becoming a common practice.I didn't said that all electronic manufacturers using it. But most of them.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 11:14:47 pm
content: I will jump in the middle of this argument.It is trivially easy to design something to fail after a fixed period of time. In today's world of ubiquitous microcontrollers it is merely adding a counter. But older technologies like the plating based hour meters would work. But anything so engineered is incredibly dangerous to a business. Just look at what is happening to Boeing where a hint of poor quality and reliability may kill the company.Designing one or more components to fail in a year or to, but work through manufacture and warranty, and also to fail without an obvious preplanned failure mechanism is hard. I won't go so far as to say it is impossible, but I can't imagine how to do it, especially if cost is an object. Making something last anywhere from x to infinity requires far less process control than making it last x plus or minus delta.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 11:27:20 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 10:54:04 pmThe estimated product lifespan is not equal to the lifespan of a single component. It will be shorter because the product consists of many components, and when they work together, the probability of failure increases. So if you're planning a 1-year warranty period, you need to use components with a longer lifespan. How much longer depends on product complexity, component count, environmental conditions, etc.At my times, such estimation was a typical task for a student of digital circuit design course. Aren't such things studied today?

author: HarryDoPECC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 11:36:23 pm
content: Late to the party, and maybe bringing it back nearer where it started.I'm interested in electronic calculators between 1960 and 1975 and have restored many to working condition. Transistors, early generation ICs, linear power supplies. Seedopecc.netif you are interested.These machines are generally over fifty years old, were expensive in their day and could use best quality parts, but some of these were of course bleeding edge tech. To the original question - I am generally impressed at the longevity of these machines over a 50 year period.Some general observations:- transistors age well, failures seem random and uncommon, I have not found a plague of tin whiskers (yet)- early DTL and TTL ICs have aged well. I typically find plastic packages and these are surely not hermetic. eg plastic Fairchild 99xx DTL chips from 1960s aged badly in a machine stored many years in a barn, but interestingly the plastic TI parts in same machine did well.- old electrolytics are most often OK, but I recognise some types of Sprague from 1960s that are often dried out. But my experience is that wholesale recapping is not indicated- likewise old tantalums, mostly OK but a small proportion do go short. I fix if/as they fail and leave the rest- mechanical connections are one of the largest failure groups, mostly oxidized/corroded connectors. Wire wrap seems to live up to its reputation for longevity (if done to standard in first place)- and remember that these are mostly digital circuits, so tend to be tolerant of maybe up to 30% drift in value of composition resistors and ceramic caps. If I were playing with vintage radio, these effects may be more significantSo my experience is that over a 50-year time frame, if in reasonable conditions of temp and humidity, the semiconductors and components generally seem to age very well.Also maybe of interest are the early computers I have. These may have UVEPROMS and my experience in machines from the 80s is that the data survives after 40 years, far longer than the original specifications suggested.Small and specific samples I know, but maybe interesting observations from actual vintage machines.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 11:38:16 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 13, 2024, 11:14:47 pmI've already addressed that further up the thread. Of course it is trivial to build a software bomb into anything with a microcontroller. But this way outside the scope of the OP's question, which was about how long electronic components and systems can be expected to last these days. All of my posts have been in that context.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 13, 2024, 11:14:47 pmIndeed, we are as one on that. I believe radiolistener is entirely mistaken in his assertions. In fact, I'm as certain of it as I can be. I've tried hard to get a full explanation of how it would work, but without much luck. His most recent post artfully avoids the question by saying "You make a system last one year by using components that last one year." Well, duh, you don't say. So how do you make a resistor or a microchip fail after one year? And where on earth can you buy a component like that? Where can I buy a capacitor with a one year lifespan?Can you imagine how utterly crazy Microchip or Intel would be if they had a part in their catalogue that said "Here is a microcontroller that will fail after a year"? And as you say, radiolistener still hasn't offered any credible description of such a reliable, and rapid, ageing mechanism.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2024, 11:47:29 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 13, 2024, 11:14:47 pmAs I said before, its not so hard. For example, just manufacture a product batch and measure its lifespan. If it's appears longest that you plan, then investigate the root of cause. Replace very reliable components with more cheap and less reliable, replace materials to less reliable. Manufacture a new product batch and measure again. If it's lifespan become too short, then find the root of cause and replace not enough reliable components with a new more expensive and more reliable. Manufacture a new product batch and measure again. etc.It become hard if you don't have stable component quality. But that is also fixable. Just investigate why your component lifespan confidence interval is too wide and fix it. Manufacture it again and measure results. Investigate root of cause. Fix. Manufacture again. Investigate. Fix. Manufacture again..... until you get desired result

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:00:16 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 13, 2024, 11:27:20 pmYeah, obviously. Tell us something we don't know.Quote from: radiolistener on August 13, 2024, 11:27:20 pmI see what's going on. I think you are confusing lifespan and MTBF. Manufacturers of components will, often reluctantly, quote an MTBF for their components because Reliability Engineers keep asking for them. Said engineers then convert MTBFs into failure rates, add them up, and convert the system failure rate into a system MTBF.You need a seriously enormous number of components to bring a system MTBF anywhere close to one year, though.And none of this has anything to do with ageing mechanisms and life expectancy of components. In fact, I don't know of any modern components that specify a service lifetime apart from LEDs, and that's because they have a well-understood ageing mechanism. I expect there will be others, but I can't think of them.There's a good reason for this: resistors, capacitors, inductors, semiconductors.... the ageing mechanisms have almost been eliminated and what's left are extremely slow. I don't believe any manufacturer specifies a lifespan for such components, because it is so difficult to identify and quantify them.radiolistener's argument rests entirely on the availability of these very short-lived components. I have yet to see any evidence that they exist. Unless he's getting mixed up with MTBFs, which now seems probable. Even then, he would need components with an inconceivably short MTBF for his scheme to work.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:03:56 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 13, 2024, 11:38:16 pmAgain, if you use MCU which can work for example 5 years. This doesn't means that if you use it in your product, then your product will work for at least 5 years. No, your product lifespan will be less, because it also uses other components. And if your mechanical button fails after 1 month, then your 5 years warranty MCU cannot help to extend your product lifespan to 5 years as your MCU...And even if your product components all have more than 5 years lifespan it doesn't means that your product will not die within 1 month due to exceed flash memory resource or due to work at overheating conditions. Even if your MCU lifespan is 10 years.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:12:47 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2024, 12:00:16 amHere is example. 5 month ago I bought electric stove. It has warranty period 12 month. After 4 month its power regulator suddenly broken, and stove don't works anymore. The heater still works, the mains socket works, but the stove lifespan is expired and it cannot be used anymore... Just 5 month lifespan. For a dumb product with no complex electronics. It is even hard to expect what may happens within 1 year warranty period...

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:16:44 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 13, 2024, 11:47:29 pmIn principal that process would work. But it requires time and money. And narrowing the confidence interval on failure is the same story. Time and money.The other problem with the approach is that it will take a few loops through the cycle to get the desired result, hence a few years. Which is long with respect to consumer electronics product life cycle.A far more productive way for manufacturers to get product turnover is feature change. In TVs this means things like 3D, hi res, 4K, 8K

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:18:48 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2024, 12:00:16 amDid you hear about the case when Apple deliberately slowed down their old smartphones?If you want to see any evidence, then you just need to open your eyes and not ignore them...

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:24:17 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 14, 2024, 12:16:44 amYes, if you starting from zero and don't use other approach for optimization it may take a lot of money and time. But if you already in this business and already has all required statistics and tested different way to control the process, the resource which you will spend on this will be almost zero in comparison with profit which you can earn from that.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:28:16 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 13, 2024, 11:47:29 pmExactly as I thought: radiolistener is conflating reliability and lifespan, almost in every sentence. That explains his misconception.That aside, he describes a theoretical process that requires anenormousamount of time and effort, involving several iterations of the design and manufacturing process, simply to make sure something breaks after one year. It is too theoretical - I don't believe it is done, or would even work. Does he not realise that each iteration would have to last a year? That's how you measure something's lifespan - you manufacture hundreds or thousands of the component, put them under test, identify their mean failure rate, and then keep the test running until the failure rate starts to rise - that's how you identify the service lifespan of a component. Oh, I know, he'll now start talking about accelerated ageing tests (something he hadn't thought to mention until now).Even if we forget about ageing altogether and just talk about intrinsic failure rates (so reliability, not longevity), they are so low that thousands of components would need to be tested in order to find ones with a high enough failure rate to make our widget fail reliably after a year. You need a LOT of components to bring a system MTBF low enough to make it fail after a year. The motherboard in my PC - a highly complex device - is working just fine after 12 years. In fact I've never had one fail. In fact I can't remember the last time I experienced the failure of anything electronic (putting aside batteries).I think he is talking from a purely theoretical standpoint with no experience of this in the real world with real components. He also seems unclear about the relationship between reliability, longevity and ageing mechanisms. Finally, he actually asserted earlier that "most" electronics are designed to fail after a year, a claim that anyone with dozens of electronic devices in their home will know to be profoundly wrong.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:30:56 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 14, 2024, 12:18:48 amWhat on earth has that got to do with it? They were trying to mitigate the effects of failing batteries, a component we have already discussed.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:33:20 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 14, 2024, 12:03:56 amYou keep repeating what we already know about combining failure rates to achieve an overall failure rate. It doesn't need endless repeats.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:33:26 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2024, 12:30:56 amI knew it, you have a reason for everything...Of course, you can come up with some reason and just close your eyes on obvious reason. But it just shows that you don't want to know the root of cause why it happens. Or you know it well and trying to hide for some reason.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:36:47 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 13, 2024, 11:47:29 pmWhy would anyone go thru that many troubles instead of just using the cheapest components possible. This is the same ridiculous claim as that Rigol or Siglent intentionally make their scopes hackable. I said to those idiots and I am going to repeat this here: doing such thing will make it a Feature of your product, it will make it an engineering Requirement, just like other Requirements, meaning you have to assign people and funding to develop it, test it, document it, integrate it with other features, if anything changes in the product you will have to perform regression testing to make sure that feature still performs (or rather Not performs in this case), and support it. Hope you see how ridiculous these type of clames are.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:39:14 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 14, 2024, 12:24:17 amNo, because you won't find components with sufficiently low MTBFs. Of course you can increase the failure rates by deliberately overloading the components - is that what you are claiming?Point us to some electronic components with an MTBF of 5 years or less. Most manufacturers will publish MTBF data. Remember, we are talking about MTBFs, not life expectancies of consumables such as batteries.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:45:06 am
content: Quote from: Bud on August 14, 2024, 12:36:47 amThere are at least two reasons for that.First, if you manufacture first product with cheap components, your product will become an outcast due to the fame of it problems. So, no one want to buy it.Second, you can have too many expenses on RMA, so you will not be able to cover all expenses from earned income.The more smart decision will be to use a better components at first release, it will minimize risk of expenses on RMA and make good reputation for the product. Then you can measure it's lifespan more precisely and apply patch with more cheap components for expenses optimizations.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:45:10 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 14, 2024, 12:33:26 amI have no idea what you are saying - sorry.And like we've already mentioned, it is trivial to make a product with a microcontroller "fail" after one year, or any other interval. To be honest, it's a far easier way than the ridiculous lengths you claim are routinely done. Can you point us to devices where this is done? And are you still asserting that "most" electronic devices are designed to fail after a year, maybe less? You did say that.

author: Shock
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:49:45 am
content: There are methods and approaches scientifically (expensive) where you can extend a device past 100 years. 20 years is easy with today's technology, correct component selection and construction techniques.But it's becoming more and more imbalanced with cheaper products on the market manufactured with low quality alloys, rubbers and plastics. So if you allow these to get into your the supply chain it can lead to all these unexpected failures in components due to thermal expansion/contraction, corrosion and off-gasing etc. This is even before poor design of the actual device or shortcuts in component selection/tolerances in order to cut costs are made.1000 years would be quite challenging but if you had the time, money and did the research I think possible. It would be nothing like a miniaturized consumer type device or even military like in appearance. Expect it "more like" a quantum computing device in a multi-chambered and vacuumed enclosed housing. Most parts would need to be directly coupled for reliability so no solder or pcb, no moving parts or plastics/rubbers.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:52:23 am
content: Sorry, chaps, this is fun but it's almost 2am in my part of the world and I must get some sleep. All the best - talk later.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:56:29 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2024, 12:45:10 amAlmost any product which was manufactured according to ISO9001 uses this approach. It includes almost all known electronics manufacturers.Quote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2024, 12:45:10 amI already provided you with example of device with no microcontroller - electric stove which consists of electric heater, power regulator and mains cable... It is failed just after 5 months due to failed power regulator. It is even hard to imagine how to make so simple thing with so small lifespan. But they do that...

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 06:08:05 am
content: I listed what could and would go wrong with this kind of "planned obsolescence" many posts ago.As long as you don't use a sophisticated timer (like a microcontroller with RTC) it will be a lottery game that usually hurts the selling company the most. If you use a sophisticated timer and someone finds out about it, it hurts the manufacturer too.Especially cheap induction hobs have always been a lottery for the consumer. Sometimes they last forever, sometimes they give magic smoke with the first power up. It seems that resonating power circuits and inexperienced quality engineers are just no good combination.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 09:58:25 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 14, 2024, 12:56:29 amI am intimately familiar with ISO9001, having once been a Divisional Quality Manager and having brought an organisation up to ISO9001 compliance no less than four times. I have authored entire Quality Management Systems (QMSs).There is literally nothing in ISO9001 that describes, or requires, the ridiculous antics that you claim are commonplace.Quote from: radiolistener on August 14, 2024, 12:56:29 amAre you serious? That is ONE example! And I've provided one example of a motherboard that is still working fine after 12 years. Both are of no value because we need quantities: failure rates and lifespans are statistical phenomena.I suspect in the case of your stove, one or more components were operating significantly outside their specifications, hence an early failure. What it does NOT demonstrate is that some engineer sat down and said "OK, how can I design this such that it fails after 5 months?".You made two claims:1/ Electronic devices can be made to fail after one year, with an accuracy of weeks or even days.2/ Most devices are designed to fail after a year or less.In support of item 1/ you described a frankly extraordinary process which would need to last several years, and which relies on finding electronic components with an almost inconceivably short lifespan (or short MTBF). I would remind you that the reliability of electronic components is specified in "FITs" - failures perbillionhours.In support of item 2/ you quote one example: a stove which failed after 5 months. But most people's experience of electronic products is that they last much, much longer. Almost indefinitely unless they contain a battery.In my house there is only one electronic product less than a year old - a new laptop. There are many products in my possession that are between 1 and 13 years old, and a handful that are a few decades old: the tablet I'm typing on, two remote controls, a mobile phone, a TV, two TV set-top-boxes, several electronic watches (some going back to the 1970s), two novelty electronic toys, eight or nine quartz clocks, several smart-home light bulbs, three laptop PCs, a desktop PC, numerous pieces of test equipment in my workshop, including an oscilloscope, a signal generator, two bench PSUs (which were made in the 1980s), two electronically controlled soldering stations, an electronically controlled lathe, five multimeters (although one is not really electronic). Also around are another TV, a surround sound system that is 16 years old, I think, a DVD player, three Bluetooth headphones, numerous wall wart power supplies.....I'm wracking my brains to remember the failures I've had. The 13-year-old Sony hybrid works fine except that the bottom fifth of the screen no longer responds to touch, so there is that. I also recall a wall wart failing, but I've no idea how old it was - several years, I think. Like most people I am literally surrounded by electronic products, in my case all but one being over a year old, and a good number are decades old. They are all still working apart from those two I mentioned. Oh, I've remembered another: an LED light bulb that failed after about a month.This is the reason why I think your second assertion - that "most" electronic devices are designed to last "a year, often less" - is simply nonsense. It is blatantly, obviously not true, and I think that seriously undermines your first claim as well.Anyway, this thread is surely exhausted by now. Please feel free to have the last word - I'm sure you will want it.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 10:10:35 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2024, 09:58:25 amI have no doubt about it, I immediately guessed why you are trying to defend planned obsolescenceQuote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2024, 09:58:25 amThe standard itself really don't have something like that. This is just a tool and it depends on you how you use it.When you use it, it's not so hard to implement planned obsolescence. This is what I talked about.Quote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2024, 09:58:25 amAre you kidding? Almost all modern products works the same. And all know that. With some minor exceptions for expensive brands, but they also tend to use the same practice.Over the past year, I have encountered at least a dozen such cases. Maybe even a hundred.If you want more example - modern mixer Bosch, it uses plastic gears which wear out in about a year (exactly the same reports from many users) and the mixer becomes unusable. Old mixers working for more than 10 years.Quote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2024, 09:58:25 amI have no doubt that you will certainly blame the users for incorect usage, bad conditions, etc. But the fact remains - the service life is about one year.You can name it "bad users". But I name it "planned obsolescence".

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 10:48:47 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 14, 2024, 10:10:35 amBosch would need to have prophetic qualities to know how often you use the mixer for what. And beside that can nylon gears be much more reliable (less abrasion) than cheap metal gears.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 11:23:57 am
content: I don't know what material they using, but it fails after a year of regular moderate using. It is reported by different buyers and the same reports from service. But it's fair to say that other brands suffers from the same issues. So if you want to find something better, you can't. The only alternative is to buy very expensive industrial grade equipment

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 11:38:03 am
content: Yes, that´s really annoying thing that even medium-priced appliances often have very low-cost internals.But anyhow, I think it´s usual "optimization" of the companies. To really target a failure 1 day after end of warranty you can't rely on material weakness alone.And, trust me, the load on a mixer is extremely different depending on what you prepare with it. Working on a heavy yeast dough is absolutely not comparable with preparing whipped cream. But the mixer should survive both for a long enough time.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:35:38 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 14, 2024, 10:10:35 amFor goodness sake!! What is wrong with you? This thread is about ELECTRONICS! Unlike electronic components, mechanical components have many ageing mechanisms which are very well understood and no doubt exploited by manufacturers. Up the thread I explained (but you weren't listening, obviously) how car manufacturers specify the service life of components and the suppliers engineer their devices to meet, but not exceed (as far as possible) the specified life. I gave the example radiator fans, and how it is possible to predict with impressive accuracy the wear rate on the brushes, and thus the service life of the fan. It was intended to be an illustration of how very different mechanical and electronic devices are.This thread is about ELECTRONICS!(Damn! I got sucked in again.)

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2024, 12:55:16 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 14, 2024, 10:10:35 amBosch have been making fragile mixers for a long time. There is a weird dynamic there. If you just make cakes a Bosch is OK. If you knead dough it isn't, and it takes very little time to break them on these heavy loads. This would be OK if they just made low power mixers that were clearly not designed to knead dough. However, they have a 1600W model, where everything but the motor is built lightweight.A more interesting case is Kitchenaid. They made reliable mixers. They moved production to China. The mixers sucked. Oh no, we have to move production back to the good old US. Actually, the problem had nothing to do with location. They had stripped the design bare when they moved production. They realised they'd overdone it, and rather than just admit it, take a hit on warranty claims, and make the US model in China, they had a whole charade around the issue. I assume they ended up with higher costs than they needed to. As I understand it, a new Kitchenaid today is pretty solid, although they make some flimsy attachments they sell alongside more robust versions.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2024, 12:55:46 am
content: Quote from: coppice on August 14, 2024, 12:55:16 pmI do not believe that story is correct. As I understand it, KitchenAid stand mixer manufacturing has always remained in USA. I cannot find any claims of one made in China, never mind evidence thereof, nor about any such “charade” and drama around it. Literally not even mention of it.Other KitchenAid products are made in various countries, but the stand mixers are all made in USA. They do, however, use imported parts, and some of those are from China.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2024, 04:51:05 am
content: Lots of loose ends and thoughts in this thread. While the question started with pulling a jet fighter out of storage after millennia, the specific question was life of "simple electronic components".What is an electronic component? Are pots and relays electronic components? Switches? Keyboards?Most people would consider a laptop computer an electronic device. Same with a desktop computer. To me that implies that the devices use to build them are "electronic components". Now consider designing each for a 1000 year life.For the desktop it is fairly easy to imagine things you could do to make it more likely to last 1000 years. Eliminate the real time clock. It isn't a core functionality. Eliminate fans. There are passive cooling mechanisms that are bulkier than forced air systems, but along with some compromise in speed it seems likely that they could be made to work. Assume that thick film resistors and ceramic capacitors have no aging mechanisms that cannot be defused by proper storage techniques. You can eliminate spinning rust with solid state memory, though I would assert that really long life, even non-operating for a device with actual countable numbers of atoms per memory cell is very much terra incognita. But a keyboard and display are still necessary. Maybe the keyboard can be a non-tactile capacitive sensor or a virtual keyboard based on LEDs and optical sensors. The display is tougher. I don't think anyone would say that LCDs or OLEDs or any other display technology has unlimited life. There are many other details that could trip up a multi-thousand year lifetime. For example the thermal paste that is normally used to improve heat paths is an issue. Maybe an Indium puck? Would have great thermal properties initially, but would it stay put for millennia?The laptop has even more issues. The mere concept of laptop makes the size compromises for thermal management impractical so things like a long life heat pipe or other more difficult solutions would be needed. Even something simple like a flex harness to allow opening and closing said laptop (surely a harness is an electronic component) could outgas, depolymerize or whatever other process occurs which makes these things get stiffer with age, leading to breakage and opens circuits upon opening after such a long time.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2024, 04:54:41 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on August 15, 2024, 12:55:46 amInteresting. I can find several references to "all Kicthenaid stand mixers have been made in the US since 1941". In the early 2010s we were in the market for a mixer, and there were lot of people complaining about the issue I described. The two are not necessarily incompatible. "Made" is usually little more than final assembly and packing. Perhaps they moved the production of the main mechanics to China around that time, and cheapened it.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2024, 05:30:14 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 15, 2024, 04:51:05 amWhen looking at electronics lifetimes, I think you need to separate anything portable. The life of so much portable equipment is limited more by mechanical robustness issues than electronic ones. Things have a hard life in pockets and rucksacks.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2024, 06:07:19 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 15, 2024, 05:30:14 pmAnd the more constraints you have regarding size and weight the more you may rely on materials like flexpcbs, plastic and glue. For me it seems well plausible that some military radio that just consists of ceramic ICs and wet tantalum capacitors with 7-segment-led displays in a rigid metallic housing may be equipped with a fresh battery in 200 years and just works. But an iphone with it´s oled display and plastic housed semi-sealed MEMS-parts??New electronic devices are not generally unreliable, but if society wants to keep nowadays standards then we really need to make production sustainable. You won't be able to switch on a todays iphone in 50years, but (hopefully) we are able to recycle today's phones into new ones in future.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2024, 06:17:03 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 15, 2024, 05:30:14 pmI think on the contrary, mobile devices have better reliability, because they are designed to be used in very aggressive environment and conditions. But their thermal design is really worse due to size limitations and if it working at high temperature it leads to shortened lifetime.Quote from: Phil1977 on August 15, 2024, 06:07:19 pmI'm very sceptic about it. Modern military radio is full of MCU with flash memory. I bet it will lose data earlier than 10-20 years. And even if it uses OTP memory, I'm very skeptic that it can run after 50 years with no issue. Most of all some components will fail and some going out of specification, but it is possible that some instances will continue to work.

author: Shock
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2024, 10:18:36 am
content: I don't disagree that low cost devices fail way sooner but it's obvious that many survive a year. Due to compromises (not only in labor cost) low cost manufacturing has a huge ecological and consumer cost. Just as a brand can't stay in business selling faulty products (unless it specifically catches unsuspecting customers) an expensive brand can't exist if there are better quality alternatives at a cheaper price (unless it has a mindless fan base). A mix of these actual four conditions occur at the same time, so arguing over specific cases is pointless.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2024, 12:03:31 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on August 15, 2024, 06:17:03 pmYeah, but the end result is nonetheless quite positive: in the early 2000s (that is, before iPhone, before smartphones as we understand them today), the average replacement cycle for mobile phones was 18 months. It’s now 3.6 years. So clearly the hardware has remained reliable enough that, as smartphones matured and got powerful enough that most people do not benefit from upgrading every year or two, most people can hold onto their phone for years.I also consider your thermal design argument to be fundamentally flawed. No manufacturer wants their phone to run hot, and hardware durability certainly is a concern, the primary reason to avoid running hot is that any heat is wasted energy from the battery, so running hot means reducing the battery life without any benefit, if it can be done cool. And this is why we design mobile SoCs the way we do, with low-power cores to run everyday tasks, and high-performance cores used only when absolutely necessary, and dedicated hardware for all manner of tasks, so that things like audio/video/image compression is done with far less power than if a CPU core had to do it.Since phones are not intended to be used for running long computing jobs, they are instead optimized for basically running little “spurts” of high performance computation to respond swiftly to user interaction, with plenty of pauses in between during which heat can be dissipated.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2024, 02:21:04 pm
content: The recent posts do seem to undermine @radiolisteners claim that "most" electronics are designed to fail after one year, (maybe less); that failures can be made to happen with an accuracy of weeks, even days; that "most" electronic products do, indeed, fail after about a year.Like most people, I'm surrounded by dozens of electronic devices, in my case nearly all of which are between 1 and 13 years old. I also have a few at least 40 years old. These are all working great. I remember a wall wart power supply failing a few months ago. Beyond that, I'm really struggling to remember the last failure of an electronic device (excluding batteries reaching end of life, of course).I'm willing to bet that most people's experience is very similar, especially when you remember just how ubiquitous electronic gadgets are. There just seems to be no evidence to support @radiolistener's "about one year" claim.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2024, 02:39:02 pm
content: Indeed.I mean, the “within days” claim is absolutely preposterous; even if we did design in deliberate failure mechanisms (other than an RTC with suicide timer), individual usage patterns, storage conditions and duration before sale, and things like environmental conditions during use would all make accurate failure impossible. (I mean, if we say ±4 days, for example, that’s 1% accuracy!)But obviously no manufacturer wants its products to fail the second the warranty expires, since that would ruin their reputation. This is the blatant fact that “planned obsolescence” loons always forget or ignore.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2024, 03:25:24 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on August 16, 2024, 12:03:31 pmThat's a complex issue. In the early 2000s phones were changing so fast, people really wanted the latest new thing. They were so eager to change they were dumping them within warranty, rather than exercise a free repair. The phones were not so physically robust, and that was OK for the time. Now they are not changing as fast. I think once most people have settled into their phone they actually want to keep it unless it starts to annoy them. Makers have learned how to get greater robustness in a slim package, and third party cases and screen protectors are getting pretty good at absorbing bumps and scratches. So, I think things have fortuitously aligned. People want to keep phones longer, as a new one is not a noteworthy improvement, and makers have learned to make them physically robust enough to last a lot longer. Even non-exchangeable batteries aren't proving to be the limiting factor one might have expected from earlier phones.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2024, 05:42:18 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on August 11, 2024, 12:25:04 amI would expect them to be 'hobble' jets and 'jumping' would be a thing of the past. Pretty much me trying to do jumping jacks.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2024, 09:44:46 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 16, 2024, 02:39:02 pmI think it's the exaggeration of an anecdotal experience many of us made a few times, i.e. that some device breaks a few days or weeks after the warranty period ended. Since we have so much stuff today the probability of this happening isn't small. However, most devices last much longer than the warranty period.Quote from: tooki on August 16, 2024, 02:39:02 pmNot all manufacturers. Some care only about quick profit. In those cases it's rarely planned obsolescence, but about being cheap, as many consumers look for the most inexpensive product.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2024, 01:25:53 pm
content: I think this is an important point:The best way to achieve a healthy churn is NOT to make your products fail at the end of the warranty period, because the risk to your reputation is just too high. The best way to achieve churn is to release every year a new, faster, better product, making last year's look staid.You've only got to look at mobile phones - that is exactly what Samsung, et al, do. Samsung phones last years and years, but the one thing you can be sure of: next year's model will be better than the one you've bought, and unfortunately you are going to really, really want it!

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2024, 08:19:37 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 17, 2024, 01:25:53 pmAnother model the Japanese car industry seemed to nearly perfect, but drifted away from, is to tune the lifetimes of many key parts to roughly match. You might consider this just basic good engineering. There's no point in having one part so over engineered that its still pristine when something else very expensive wears out, and sends the car to the scrap yard. There was a period when many owners of these cars had them for a number of years, with nothing more than regular maintenance being required. Then they would reach a point where something failed. And soon something else failed. Then something else. At some point they went for a new car, but all those trouble free years they'd had lead them to buy from the same brand.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2024, 08:24:41 pm
content: Further up the thread I described how Siemens - a car parts manufacturer - does this. For most parts, there is indeed a specified service life (mechanical parts have well known ageing mechanisms). And you are right: Ford doesn't want to waste even a cent on something that lasts any longer than needed.

author: Infraviolet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2024, 10:01:41 pm
content: "There's no point in having one part so over engineered that its still pristine when something else very expensive wears out"Still occurs quite a lot though. I'm typing this on a desk-bound laptop of >10 years age. HDD needed replacement a while back, battery completely died (hence desk-bound) after just a few years and needed disposal, but everything else appears in top condition and I've given it a strip-down and clean for dust a few times. There's a lot of other things I've experienced where a whole device as a system hasn't lasted so long, but the failed part was one specific thing which could be replaced (however much the manufacturer wished you wouldn't) or partially replaced so as to restore most functionality if not everything the device could do before the one thing failed. We should be glad manufacturers haven't learn how to be more "efficient" in this regard, maybe it is simply because they can't really make, for various simple cheap things (passive components, screws*, PCB FR boards...), one cheaper than usual by skimping on quality in a way which still lets it perform its role in the first place but is low enough quality not to last long.*an extra point being here that screws and the things they thread in to wear out when being tightened and loosened, here's a part which doesn't so much age with the years, but with how many times you have to open a device up to service other parts of it

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2024, 10:51:36 pm
content: Quote from: Infraviolet on August 17, 2024, 10:01:41 pmAs I said earlier, I don't believe manufacturers of electronic products engineer things to fail in order to generate churn. They just need to make next year's model slightly better. There are exceptions: non-replaceable batteries, the waste ink tank in inkjet printers...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2024, 11:02:17 pm
content: Quote from: Infraviolet on August 17, 2024, 10:01:41 pmIts quite common that when you go to a car parts place and ask for some part for your car, they get out a different one from the same area of the car. When you say you want this other one, they'll tell you that you almost certainly don't, as the problem in that model is always the bit they are offering you. They are usually right. Many products have a weak component like this. The maker gains nothing from having this weak part, its just a screw up in the design. The part typically isn't expensive, so there's little revenue from selling replacements. A car certainly isn't going to be sold or scrapped over it. Its just a mistake, and the poorer reliability it causes just hurts the maker's reputation. There is no upside for them. Engineers aren't perfect and work to time constraints. Mistakes happen. Not everything is a conspiracy...... On the other hand not everything is not a conspiracy. You need to investigate each case to know.

author: nigelwright7557
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2024, 12:33:12 am
content: For a manufacturer the device should fail just out of warranty.I watch a lot of pc repair video's and a very common fault is SMD capacitors.Sometimes to get a large value of capacitor they use many smaller capacitors instead.So this multiplies the chance of failure.

author: Phil1977
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2024, 09:13:05 am
content: Quote from: nigelwright7557 on August 18, 2024, 12:33:12 amSorry, but especially for the audience of this forum this is absolutely not convincing. Smaller caps have less impedance in higher frequency ranges. And the less impedance the caps have, the less dissipation they endure (especially in parallel!) and the longer they live...Watching repair videos on YT often is fun and informative. But especially in PC gaming, CB radio or HiFi there really is a lot of BS. A golden rule is that a teardown/repair guy that says "all big companies are stupid/malicious" just did not understand the system on a larger view.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2024, 03:54:04 pm
content: Quote from: nigelwright7557 on August 18, 2024, 12:33:12 amI assume you have never spent a single day in electronic engineering. What you said is so wrong its hard to know were to start in addressing the misunderstanding. Using a mix of moderately large capacitors that store a lot of energy, and small capacitors which are more responsive, plus spreading out the capacitance so its close to the load, rather than separated by trace inductances, are fundamental principles in good decoupling. We rarely use large capacitors outside power supplies. The responsiveness of a large capacitor itself sucks, and centralising the energy storage brings major problems with inductance. How does spreading the electrical stresses over multiple capacitors, rather than concentrating them at a single point of failure, increase the chances of failure? That makes no sense.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2024, 06:49:15 pm
content: While the reason for using many small capacitors is wrong, he is right about one thing, and I am curious about another. Every additional component is a failure opportunity, and may indeed increase the likelihood of failure. This may or may not be compensated by reduced stresses on the individual components.The one I am curious about is the observation that SMD capacitors are a common failure. Not expected, not my experience, but I have always believed that data outweighs theory. At this point it isn't really data, or not very good data, but I would like to know more.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2024, 07:05:07 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 18, 2024, 06:49:15 pmThere are a lot of mechanically inadequate SMD devices, especially capacitors. Microscopic cracks in ceramics seems to lead to long term failures, even if they appear to work adequately on day one. Some electrolytics, which are reasonably robust when new seem to break from their mounting wires with a very light touch after a few years. Unless they are badly mishandled, resistors and ICs and other semiconductors seem pretty OK in their various SMD forms. Capacitors, and heavier inductors could do with a serious mechanical upgrade.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2024, 09:36:49 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 18, 2024, 06:49:15 pmThis is exactly right, with caveats. To find the overall failure rate of a module, you sum the failure rates of the individual components. Thus, all else being equal, more components does indeed mean a higher module failure rate. HOWEVER, as you say, it gets complicated when adding extra components in order to reduce the failure rates of the individual components (such as the example with multiple caps in parallel).I think it could successfully be modelled, but the result could go either way depending on the exact details.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 11:44:28 am
content: Connections which are neither soldered or crimped can be a big factor in limiting the practical lifetime of electronics. I have been digging out some 15 to 20 year old telephony hardware this week, to create a test setup for something. This is stuff that has been in store for the last 10 years. Things like PC telephony cards which have been stored in anti-static bags in nice clean domestic conditions. When put away all of this stuff was working fine. Now I seem to have to clean every plug, socket, inter-board connector and other form of non-soldered connection to achieve stable results. Plugs and sockets will accumulate a film of atmospheric grease over time, so things like the occasional bad contact on leads is not too surprising. However, I'm having to disassemble mother/daughter plugged together modules, where the connections have not been disturbed since the module was assembled at the factory. What should have been a simple setup and configuration task is turning into a substantial job.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 02:25:44 pm
content: Indeed, and airtight connectors are designed to avoid corrosion at the connecting surfaces for this reason.Interestingly, "airtight" does not mean air cannot enter the connector; rather, it means air is excluded from the contact surfaces themselves.A good example is IC sockets. The cheap ones use contact springs which are pressed into contact with the IC legs. Because of the large surface area between the touching surfaces, air is not sufficiently excluded. Over some years corrosion or oxidation will build up between the surfaces and cause a poor connection.I have fixed several faults simply by removing the IC from the socket, rubbing the legs with a glass fibre brush, and reinserting.More expensive IC sockets use turned pins. In these the four corners of the IC legs are forced into contact with the walls of the circular hole in each leg of the socket. The tiny surface area in contact means the contact pressure is much higher, such that the air is sufficiently excluded from the surfaces in contact and the connection is considered airtight andalmostimmune to oxidisation and corrosion.Have you used a wire wrap gun? For these connections, there is a pin with a square cross section and maybe 1cm long. Solid core copper wire is stripped and wrapped around the pin under tension for perhaps a dozen turns - maybe a few less. (The gun strips the wire, sets the tension and wraps the wire, all automatically.) Being under tension the corners of the pin dig into the copper wire with considerable pressure (due to the small contact area), and there are four such points per turn of the wire. The pressure is such that air is excluded, so these are considered airtight connections. Thus you end up with 4 x 12 (say) = 48 airtight connections between the pin and the wire. These connections were everywhere to be seen in the telecommunications equipment I used to work on, and they are considered to be the most reliable and long-lasting of all connection technologies.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 04:48:14 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 20, 2024, 02:25:44 pmQuote from: SteveThackery on August 20, 2024, 02:25:44 pmAnother interesting difference between spring contact sockets and turned pin ones is when you use them in a fairly high vibration environment. We used to have trouble with airborne test systems. The spring contacts will wear away the legs of an IC until the legless IC falls out. Until one of the legs wears completely through the socket usually makes reliable contact, even though the contact area is clearly in motion while in operation for the two surfaces to be wearing each other away. Turned pin sockets pretty much eliminate this problem.Quote from: SteveThackery on August 20, 2024, 02:25:44 pmThe reliability of wire wrap connections around square pins is amazing, but that usually gets wrecked by the poor reliability of what the square pin is attached to. Like a spring contact IC socket.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 05:26:59 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 17, 2024, 10:51:36 pmI think the waste ink tank "problem" is blownwildlyout of proportion, in that the waste ink tanks are sized to handle far more than the typical usage of the printer! Printers with bigger, cheaper-per-ml ink cartridges and higher print speeds have proportionally larger ones. (Indeed, if someone is printing enough to actually saturate the waste container, they are printing way more than is sensible for that printer -- they'd save money by buying a higher-end printer that uses cheaper consumables.) Nearly every case I've heard of, it's someone who printed huge volumes with a dinky printer, which just doesn't make sense.The only inkjets where it truly makes sense to have replaceable waste ink containers -- and they do -- are the ones with bulk ink supplies (ecotank, etc), since those are really intended for both larger volume printing and longer printer lifespans.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 05:31:47 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 20, 2024, 02:25:44 pmThe word normally used in this context is "gastight", not "airtight". I think that's more convention than anything else, but makes for a nice distinction in what is meant.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 05:34:34 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 20, 2024, 04:48:14 pmNot that it matters anymore -- I don't think wire wrapping can handle the high-frequency signals we now use for so many things. It's a cool technology, but incompatible with many of today's needs.I wonder if there are still any applications left for wire wrapping, if we exclude maintenance (or even like-for-like replacement) of old gear.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 06:08:01 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on August 20, 2024, 05:31:47 pmYou are absolutely correct - thank you for the pointing it out.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 06:32:23 pm
content: Any non soldered connection is prone to fail, though wire wrap is the best of the lot.I have had several vehicles where one of the control modules uses a pair of PWBs interconnected by square pins pressed into a heavily plated through hole. I've seen the technique used in TE and some consumer products. In the automotive application they often fail after a few years. Soldering the pin into the hole resolves the issue. Life is unknown, but so far substantially longer than the original method.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 06:34:12 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on August 20, 2024, 05:31:47 pmGastight implies all gases, but its very hard to exclude hydrogen and helium completely. Airtight is more in line with what we are looking for in keeping electronics in good condition. Oxygen tight to be even more specific.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 06:37:27 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 20, 2024, 06:32:23 pmIf those things fail easily they were not executed properly. Like wire wrap, the goal with that type of pin insertion is to form a cold weld. If they succeed it takes serious corrosion to cause the joint to fail. Its a quality problem, not a weakness of the basic technique.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 07:07:36 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 20, 2024, 06:37:27 pmWhile I technically agree with you, any process which requires tight quality control for success is less robust than one which doesn't.The same concept applies to bolted joints. For non demanding applications bolted joints are extremely reliable. As the limits of bolted joints are pushed their success depends on tight controls materials, heat treatments, thread forms, cleanliness, installation and more. Each of those areas is an opportunity for a quality escape, and I have seen all of them

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 07:20:16 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on August 20, 2024, 05:26:59 pmThe inkjet printer 'waste ink tank' is something of a misnomer. In many cases, it's just a sheet of foam in the base of the printer! If you can find the appropriate reset code and with some disassembly, you can simply wash it out and re-use it.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 07:22:48 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 20, 2024, 06:32:23 pmAnd soldered connections are also prone to failure. No type of connection is completely free of failures. And the types of failures they’re susceptible to differs.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 20, 2024, 06:32:23 pmPress-fit connectors are widely used in automotive applications precisely because they have favorable performance characteristics in that operating environment. It’s certainly not done to save money, because as I understand it, it’s a more expensive process than soldering. It requires an extra process step that can’t be shared with other THT components, and it places MUCH higher demands on hole tolerances than THT soldering.That you had multiple failures is either indicative that a particular auto manufacturer or its supplier have poor process control, or that you just had incredibly bad luck.What you and I don’t know is how high the failure rate would have been if they had used soldered connectors from the start. It’s possible that the failure rate would be much higher. There is no chance the auto manufacturers haven’t done testing, as well as analysis of actual failures.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 07:29:14 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 20, 2024, 07:07:36 pmWell sure, but the more “robust” (I would say “tolerant” instead) process may not be capable of meeting the required performance standards. So we can only say that “more tolerant = better” with the qualifier of “all else held equal”.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2024, 11:40:57 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on August 20, 2024, 07:22:48 pmWhile I absolutely agree that the manufacturer did testing, I am equally sure that the testing was some form of HALT testing (highly accelerated life test) which predicted adequate results for their needs. But their warranty on non-drive train components is a time or miles thing, both resulting on average in a warranty about half the observed failure time. So it may not have been worse than intended process control, just my needs differ from the manufacturers. Or it may have been a failure mode that their HALT process failed to accelerate. These are 1999 vehicles, the failures occurred in the 2007 time frame, and I am only now finding that service and repair time and costs are rising to the point that I am disappearing the vehicles. I had multiple copies because that years model turned out to be a perfect fit for my needs, better than any vehicle before or since. Found I loved the first one and bought used ones about a decade later as good values appeared on the market. Don't know what I will do when the remaining ones rot under me. After substantially more than a million miles total service.There are some other quirks about these vehicles that provide insight into keeping any kind of equipment going over long intervals. I purchased a service manual for the model, which was new enough that all the actual service manuals are an on line subscription service from the manufacturer. Someone had downloaded the then current version and got it to run stand alone. Which was performed by having a virtual machine running in VMware that had Windows XP running is some sort of OS/2 warp shell. Somewhere is the last couple of years an execution mode in VMware was deprecated and I no longer have access to the service manual. I am sure with enough effort I could get access again, but that along with the increasing difficulty of finding parts for a 25 year old car and upholstery that is finally wearing enough to matter and frame rust that is starting to matter (and the aging and unwillingness of the operator to do heavy wrenching) it is just more effort than it is worth.Automobiles are complex systems with many, many decay modes. Most of our electronic devices are simpler and far more robust. But the same general problems apply. Not only does the device gradually fail with time, but the infrastructure to maintain it erodes also.