It's possible that the battery cavity was designed for standard, nominal battery dimensions and didn't account for the battery swelling as it discharged. A battery can drop right in the cavity when new and become securely jammed as it discharges.
In a past life I was involved with a product that included a 9V battery cavity. One high-end manufacturer that you see on retail shelves makes their batteries right at the high-end of the dimensional range to increase internal volume (and thus performance). At least they provided a design guide and it warned us to account for the swelling.
It's been a couple of decades but designing 9V battery holders used to be a compensated activity. I know of no engineer designer whose intention is to create service work. Save it with the other conspiracy theories. There are proven tested hardware pieces for 9V contacts available off the shelf that are used for all the usual reasons such as inexpensive, near zero lead time, functional, compatible with manufacturing processes, meet dfm requirements etc. The most common of these is the ubiquitous "vinyl covered two wire battery snap". My guess is that the designer was given a budget, a timeline and some design requirements that did not include "make the remote power source easily replaceable by an arthritic, left handed, very nearsighted octogenerian using candlelight without any tools." It's even possible that the remote itself was selected as an off the shelf unit that could be easily adapted to this use. That doesn't excuse consideration of the end user in completion of a functional design. Although I have seen tamper resistance in such specifications. It may well be that the assumption of a more adept caregiver being involved entered in. The recent focus on human factors in design is a positive move in the right direction, particularly as it impacts the elderly and other underserved populations. The design seems shortsighted - can we leave it at that?
deejayh: I think you should re-read my comment. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to the main topic, and was based on the fact that there's another fellow, GTOLOVER, who responds quite frequently in these DESIGN NEWS blogs.
Maybe a little lightheartedness is appropriate in many instances.
Why do you insist on posting about the venerable GTO on "Made By Monkeys"? My '68 was purchased used in '76. A 400 c.i., 4 speed, 411 rear end. The only design error with the vehicle was that the speedometer didn't cover the vehicles true maximum speed. But had I ever gotten pulled over in rural Oklahoma and was asked if I knew how fast I was going I could honestly reply "no officer".
I am guessing that the chair is similar to any remote operated appliance in the home (or workplace). The most frequently user serviced item is the battery. A design that includes a difficult to replace battery in a non-rechargeable remote is poorly engineered.
Point well taken on "stupidity" Fauxscot. My point was really to stress that I didn't think the design was intentionally difficult in order to foster service calls. So, in an awkward way, I was defending the engineer. Kind of a backhanded compliment.
This IS so boring discussing lousy engineering of high-priced items. Let's talk about GTOs & their siblings. That's MORE fun, and brings back a ton of memories.
#1) Had a friend who bought his wife a 1965 TEMPEST convertible w/ OHC-6. It WAS a neat car. Bright yellow w/ black rag top & black interior. Was stolen.....
#2) Had a friend who bought a 1967 ragtop GTO used in 1968. Dark Blue w/ white interior. Even though it had the "400" engine w/ 4-speed tranny, it wasn't very good, so we pulled it, and replaced it w/ a slightly overbore 427 Chevy motor, done up right! That fellow still has this vehicle to this day..... It's a show car only!
#3) Had a friend who bought a brand-spankin' new JUDGE in 1970. Ran it for about a year, then "reworked" the motor. Was neat vehicle, but unfortunately, it (the JUDGE!) got killed in a lame traffic accident that could also have happened to a 6-cylinder FALCON. It wasn't the friend's fault, but his JUDGE paid the ultimate price.
p.s. Always enjoyed working on race cars in my younger days, but was never a GM fan, even though I did my share of work on them. Preferred FoMoCo & CHRYSLER....
Interesting perspective fauxscot. I suspect your browser may be the problem for you posting. It is working for me and all I'm using is my phone.
On the original topic I would suspect last minute chamges, after any prototyping was already completed, to be the problem. Whenever I got bit it was a last minute item that wasn't considered significant enough to fully test again, or it was something from a supplier (like a remote manufacturer perhaps) that didn't match what we had actually tested before a launch. Experience is just learning what can bite, and how to prevent it. But I will stick up for young grads. With the changes in technology today they've helped us find problems through analysis that wasn't even available until a few years ago. I learned from a wise co-worker to know the difference between 30 years experience, and 30 years of 5 years experience.
I can appreciate the design considerations that are worked into this type of equipment. Considering that it can directly impact human life and limb. Try working on designs that fly men and women into space, it's not an easy feat. Yet the end user (an astronaut) is always consulted for review and recommentations. As an Engineer it's often easy to mis a single tree for the forest blocking your view.
A mistake isn't necessarily stupidity. There are 1000 elements in this elevator design and that one implementation isn't grounds for labeling something stupid. It's a human transport mechanism with fail-safes, basic engineering problems, rate and position controls, a wide tolerance of loads ranging from zero to fat passenger, predictable performance when the power goes off mid-lift, 1000 connector choices, PCB layout, software design/coding/debug/revision control, materials, mechanical engineering issues (like gear ratios, drive coupling, motor sizing/type), packaging, documentation, CAD, bills of materials, sourcing, tooling for custom parts, manufacturing. That's all before the marketing, sales, installation, and other types of support.
Stupid, in the face of all that reality, seems a harsh description. (I'm sure you didn't mean anything horribly negative, sir, and I apologize if it sounds like I am criticizing you. Odds are you are a vastly better engineer than I!)
I'm just ranting about a sore point for me and my fellows who have spent careers dodging bullets from all directions!
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.