You're right, Rob, you can probably multiply this by a thousand. What always amazes me is that there are so many of these kinds of problems, and that it takes so long for companies to notice them -- or, more accurately, to admit that the problems exist.
It is interesting reading all these threads. I suggest you read the book "poorly made in China". I have worked directly with our suppliers in China and there is a good correlation between my experiences and those quoted in the book.
I have seen many smoke detectors, have been installing them in my house since some 20 years. All follow the same essential basis rules, including the *inability* to close the cover when there is no battery installed, to avoid malicious people from making it "look good" without actual battery as well as to force/remind you to purchase a new battery (after it started beeping in the middle of the night and you yanked the battery out) for that dangling-open smoke detector...
Having a detector that not only closes without battery but even locks you out unless the battery is already installed is exactly what you don't want and a typical case of a design spec saying "must have locking feature" and the engineers faithfully implementing each of the line items. I have seen a lot of specs that in their context were not ambiguous, but when read line by line, you could clearly see how the engineers implementing the literal text of the spec got it exactly reversed. This product is yet another example of such. The product should not be sold if the store is aware of the problems with it though.... That is just bad service to your customers.
The law is probably in the way of making this easy - what I mean is that the usual 9V battery for the smoke alarm makes it a stand-alone device that anybody can install at their ceiling. As soon as you make this device use grid power to avoid the use and requirements of replacing batteries, you are immediately confronted with either:
- use a power supply and a wall/ceiling outlet and run the cable to the smoke detector, a pretty ugly solution but if you can install near an outlet it could still be a customer installable device
- attach the detector to the house wiring, which should require an electrician, though this is a permanent solution and you never have to change a battery again. It can be costly though to run wires, install an outlet and connect each alarm to it.
If you want to go for a system that sounds the alarm in all rooms when there is a problem in one location, then you will need either wireless or the grid connected alarms which have an additional wire installed to communicate with each other and set of the alarm on all units
In a previous century I got so fed up with buying and changing batteries that I used a rechargeable battery and trickle-charged it directly from the grid through two very high value resistors that constantly replaced the fractional mA consumption plus self-discharge, so I never had to worry about it again until I moved out of that house, many years later.
I believe code now requires that all smoke/CO detectors in new homes receive line power, trigger all other detectors, and have a backup battery. You cannot put a stand-alone smoke/CO detector in new construction. You can buy wireless alarms and use them to replace older "solo" alarms. That's what I'd do in a home without hardwired alarms.
This tale is one more example of the futility of attempting to protect stupid people. On quite a few occasions some stupid interlock designed to prevent one action winds up preventing some other action, until the interlock function and hardware is removed, completely and positively bypassing whatever intent was in the original design. Of course the fact is that the less skilled person would probably do much more damage to the product while removing the interlock function.
Truchard will be presented the award at the 2014 Golden Mousetrap Awards ceremony during the co-located events Pacific Design & Manufacturing, MD&M West, WestPack, PLASTEC West, Electronics West, ATX West, and AeroCon.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.