Dare I say Bob Roberts is the Alpo of parts? 🐕

You just have to wonder if any engineer who worked on designing and building these PCBs (or even the components themselves) ever imagined a bunch of guys arguing over the statistical data (or lack thereof of ACTUAL hard numbers) 40+ years later 😂

My (not so) hot take on this whole debate comes down to difference of careers. What ATGW is asking about and being persistent about is something that is very relevant in his career. Nuclear has to be correct (and optimized) not only to keep costs down and to make sure the *thingamajig* works, but in his case make the difference of life and death. Andrew's background (assumed based on observation but fully conjecture) is more on EE and service. In specifics to 80s game board work, hard concrete numbers are not usually "feasible". The research data is less critical in this instance. No one dies, and the longer term potential cost savings is outweighed by the slowed down work. Andrew has basically said without saying that he does not catalog every data point of every repair. Do you know how insane it would be to record every single test point of data while diagnosing a board? A 1 hour service job turns into 5 hours.

I stand by the point this is semantics and not much more. If Andrew had said "in my experience while working on boards, I've never seen XYZ go bad", this debate wouldn't be happening. We are nitpicking him because he said "this never fails". Is it not just assumed that he means from his experience? Common sense tells us that he hasn't touched every single Atari board that ever existed, collected data on each one, and catalogued it.
 
There has been an increase of trolling and shit posts that have destroyed several threads like a cancer on this forum.
the same name or names always come up as the source of entertainment. an argumentive post or 2 or 3 here and there is fine but at some point the initial thread is destroyed by an off topic argument.
to prevent this i say we should report such things to admins so disciplinary action can be taken. maybe a warning or 2 and then a temporary ban or relocate the argument to a new thread. people associate klov with all these dick measuring contests and it is not something to be proud of. there is nothing wrong with a heathy debate but those who consistently damage the soundness of this site should be addressed.

Yeah this sums it up really well. At some point we all kind of learn each others personalities and writing styles (and intended conveyance). You should be able to recognize that and just simply DNE: Do not engage. Remember the discussion a month or a few back about how KLOV isn't as active as it was and posting is down and less interest all around? We aren't doing any favors pouring gasoline on every thread and lighting a match. We used to have threads specifically for the (funny) drama and kept everything else more on topic. HOW DID A BOB ROBERTS THREAD DEVOLVE TO THIS?!?! And within so few pages.
 
You just have to wonder if any engineer who worked on designing and building these PCBs (or even the components themselves) ever imagined a bunch of guys arguing over the statistical data (or lack thereof of ACTUAL hard numbers) 40+ years later 😂

My (not so) hot take on this whole debate comes down to difference of careers. What ATGW is asking about and being persistent about is something that is very relevant in his career. Nuclear has to be correct (and optimized) not only to keep costs down and to make sure the *thingamajig* works, but in his case make the difference of life and death. Andrew's background (assumed based on observation but fully conjecture) is more on EE and service. In specifics to 80s game board work, hard concrete numbers are not usually "feasible". The research data is less critical in this instance. No one dies, and the longer term potential cost savings is outweighed by the slowed down work. Andrew has basically said without saying that he does not catalog every data point of every repair. Do you know how insane it would be to record every single test point of data while diagnosing a board? A 1 hour service job turns into 5 hours.

I stand by the point this is semantics and not much more. If Andrew had said "in my experience while working on boards, I've never seen XYZ go bad", this debate wouldn't be happening. We are nitpicking him because he said "this never fails". Is it not just assumed that he means from his experience? Common sense tells us that he hasn't touched every single Atari board that ever existed, collected data on each one, and catalogued it.
I'm not suggesting a 5 hour exercise.

However, to make a definitive statement, one should at least be able to show an apples to apples comparison.

For example, let's take the small population of electrolytic capacitors on the AR board.

We know the approximate board date, as it is stamped on the board. Data point 1.
We know the expected values of the capacitors. Data point 2.
We know the date the board came in for service. Data point 3.
We can then simply calculate the years estimated of life to date. Data point 4.
We can then just extend this to an Excel spreadsheet, note the tester being used, and what the values are for these capacitors in the grouping.

Once set up, it's a 15 minute exercise. Making it easier, I'd make a "tab" for each capacitor, and transfer the data with a simple "call" to the "main" spreadsheet, then copy and paste and done.

So it isn't a 5 hour exercise. It's just nobody sees the value of the exercise.

I'd love to see the data. I'd like to try various curve fits, which may show us things are great, or they are decaying in a poly or binomial fashion, to where we could predict the date of failure.

But it only works if we are interested. And apparently, we're not.

Back when these games were being built, Deming's principles of statistical quality control (SQC) had been implemented successfully in Japan, but were not generally accepted in the US. This is one of the keys as to how the Japanese cars were able to capture the market. They applied statistical quality control with a fervor, and turned out progressively better products until they eclipsed the US automakers, who then spent years trying to catch up before catching on to the SQC processes available.

Perhaps as an industry, if the industry had paid more attention to SQC (for example, every DOT game I ever saw back in the day was not working - think if what would have happened if Midway had looked at the number of failures, where they were occurring, started investigating, found the problem, fixed it, and then I would have been able to play DOT when I found one) the quarter drops would have been higher, and Ops profits higher, and Ops frustrations lower.

But again, while Deming brought it to the forefront in Japan, it took years to catch on here. And some people still don't see it (even though the reap the benefits of it with better product quality.)
 
Drunken thread history...TLDR version: @andrewb made a an unsupported claim of fact and @ArcadeTechGW challenged him on it.

I think the basic disconnect is @ArcadeTechGW is asking for something and doesn't know how to ask for it while @andrewb is offended by the manner of the request and in defence mode. And he is confusing what he has provided with what he thinks he has provided. They are different.

I'll foolishly be the middle man here for just one post.

What @andrewb actually provided was not data (which was his claim) nor was it a baseless opinion (which was @ArcadeTechGW's claim). I think it could be called a hypothesis or more likely an actual theory at this point. But not a simple opinion. In anycase it can be properly called "a brief summary of a conclusion based on an accumulation of data".

@andrewb....if you have written records for all of your repairs (e.g. a detailed list of measurement made on each board and the results of each measurement) THAT would be considered data. And that is what was requested. You can paraphrase your experiments ("I did this and that on 100's of boards") and you can make claims about your findiings ("I have never seen a failure on hundreds of boards") and that's just ok. But it is not the same as sharing your methods and your raw data for peer review.

@ArcadeTechGW...once the trenches are dug, being super aggressive will only cause people to dig deeper. You know that. Be better. @andrewb's statement of "fact" may or may not be true. But it is valid as conclusion based on his analysis of his data. You are certainly correct to question it. And you are correct to ask for his supporting data and experimental methods. But don't try to belittle his conclusion just to make a point. It's not helping you get what you want.

You guys both need to try harder to communicate with each other. It's an ongoing soap opera that doesn't help our community at all and onlly serves to divide us into factions.


Now I'll call out @ArcadeJason. He wins the thread by knowing the difference between a report summary and factual data.
@andrewb made a claim (possibly in jest, or possibly not...hard to tell) about Jason being a "copy monkey" or a "relabeling troll" [my terms] and Jason provided a plurality of photographic evidence...i.e. RAW DATA...that insantly disproved Andy's claim. That's how you do it. Good job, Jason.
Did you actually read and try to understand all of this?
 
Here's what I know: Andy has tested/repaired a LOT more AR's than I have (or ever will). He says he has never found a bad capacitor on one (ignoring physically damaged ones). He has no reason to lie, so I believe him.
Based on that information, I am not going to replace capacitors on an AR just for the fun of it (which I have done in the past). I don't need a spreadsheet or detailed statistical analysis. Anecdotal evidence from what I believe is a reliable source is all I need.
Maybe in 40 more years they'll all start exploding like popcorn. Hopefully I'll be around to enjoy that.
 
Here's what I know: Andy has tested/repaired a LOT more AR's than I have (or ever will). He says he has never found a bad capacitor on one (ignoring physically damaged ones). He has no reason to lie, so I believe him.
Based on that information, I am not going to replace capacitors on an AR just for the fun of it (which I have done in the past). I don't need a spreadsheet or detailed statistical analysis. Anecdotal evidence from what I believe is a reliable source is all I need.
Maybe in 40 more years they'll all start exploding like popcorn. Hopefully I'll be around to enjoy that.
hold my beer.............
 
that was blowing a fuse on the power brick due to a shorted cap
i have more but not sure where they are
 
I was under the impression that Bob Roberts was dude from the mail-order days who overstocked on shitty surplus capacitors and for the last 30 years has been picking from the same stock so they didn't have to write off bad and expired product.
 
There has been an increase of trolling and shit posts that have destroyed several threads like a cancer on this forum.
the same name or names always come up as the source of entertainment. an argumentive post or 2 or 3 here and there is fine but at some point the initial thread is destroyed by an off topic argument.
to prevent this i say we should report such things to admins so disciplinary action can be taken. maybe a warning or 2 and then a temporary ban or relocate the argument to a new thread. people associate klov with all these dick measuring contests and it is not something to be proud of. there is nothing wrong with a heathy debate but those who consistently damage the soundness of this site should be addressed.
If you want me to shut up just say so then! LOL Admit it though, you would miss me ( Maybe like a bad tooth ache... but you would still miss me )

I know I have my fair share of disturbances. But I also like to poke fun, and show the light-hearted side.. and sometimes the plain absurdness of it all. While constant fighting is not healthy, neither is taking one's self too seriously. ( and that titbit of wisdom was shared with me by some other smart person here who has contributed for years. )
 
Another Alpha-tron post. Please ignore. It only an opinion of an old man. Who enjoys naps in the back yard on warm days.

Someday an ice cold sun tea hits the spot an other days it an almost frozen beer.

Old age tends to make me even more rattly. I do have an arcade point/ life point to make. Down the rabbit hole we go shall we?

When one has lifetime friends/ wife, a phrase or gesture can give your buddies/ wife a laugh. Great when You with yours and completely confusing amongst others who don't have a clue.

1) What is your goal?

Do you want to take over being the moose "blank" cook? If you drive technical people out of klov? Are you going to replace them?

2) what will happen if you are successful?

Every action you take has a reaction. Frying pan or fire? Have you thought enough of what comes afterwards?

3) What will happen if you fail? How much damage will you do to yourself? Will it drive you to avoid what been created here?

4) Are you willing to go quiet even tho your right? There are some people who are so blinded that having a conversation with them is useless. Why bother?

5) Alot of people just do not care if your right or wrong. Empathy only works if people care what you are saying and doing.

Somebody beer me. LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom