Should you correct production mistakes?
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk
Thu Aug 26 13:45:30 CDT 2010
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Eric Smith wrote:
> > I think the way that I would state it is that just because the system is
> > working correctly (at the moment) doesn't mean that it isn't broken.
> > Part of the reason I don't think we'd fix such a problem in the PDP-1 is
> > that the PDP-1 isn't doing anything criticial. We can afford to have
> > downtime if a latent problem eventual causes a failure. If we've
> > properly documented that latent problem, we can check for it when the
> > system does fail, and fix it if necessary at that time.
> Your ability to tolerate downtime is significant, as also is your thorough
That would apply to me too i nthe case of this HP terminal. I am not
depending on it working. Yes, I want to be able to use it, and I want to
play about with it, but if it fails I am quite happy to open it up and
grab the 'scope and logic analyser...
> documentation, so that the repair won't end up in the hands of board
> Y'know, it would be fun to see an entire set of exhibits explicitly about
> failure modes. Remember the HUH S100 boards for the TRS80, where one of
> the entire early production runs was reversed, but could be used by
> soldering all of the components to the back side of the board?
I am pretty sure there ws a DMM sold in the UK which sued as expensiv
'custom' 40 pin chip. Turns out it was a 7107 or something mirror-flippe.
You could use a normal one if you soldered it to the otehr side of the
PCN (and there was enough space to do that.
Sinclar machines are knwon for such bodges -- ICs and/or transistors
stuck on top of other comonents with kludgewires everywhere. Although
wether those machines ever worked correctly is debatable :-)
More information about the cctech