On Jul 15, 8:25*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16/07/2011 11:03 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:



I think you are all missing the point here! The whole exercise appears
to have been a simple demonstration of materials science and failure
analysis techniques. It doesn't matter if it was an office chair or a
piece of test material, but it serves an a good demonstration to young
engineers of what failure analysis can achieve.

Sadly, it also serves as a reminder of how often we have to throw stuff
out and buy replacements not because an item is genuinely worn out, but
because it wasn't designed/made properly in the first place.

Sylvia.

The new and improved levels of cheapness and dysfunctional aspects or
built-in obsolescence are always amazing to me, in that so few of the
current and next generation has any clue whatsoever as to selecting,
properly utilizing or much less actually caring for anything that's
public funded.

Everything has to look terrific and be all extra shiny and new, as
well as trendy or else it apparently isn't any good.

http://groups.google.com/group/googl...t/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”