Hi All, Though some may disagree, I strongly believe that the
correct way to test any product involves setting up "real-time"
experiments. It only seems logical to me that any test procedure
which involves testing the product way beyond its most extreme "real
time" environment only serves to prove that the product does indeed
have certain limitations. It does not indicate that the product will
perform poorly or for less than a reasonable amount of time under
normal conditions. Let's just take one quick example and see if you
Try under-inflating or over-inflating the tires on your car and then
drive that car at 200 MPH on a oval track. What do you suppose will
happen in about 50 miles to that tire, which has a 50,000 mile wear
guarantee? I'm fairly certain it will explode! Does that mean the
tire is defective? Or that the compound used to make the tire is
flawed in any way? I think not; all it means is that you have abused
the tire to the point where it failed prematurely. Was the test _fair?_
I think the obvious answer is "No."
Lastly, in the interest of fairness, I think it would be prudent to
perform logical testing before publicly announcing that a product is
worthless or defective. Also, bear in mind that the manufacturers of
virtually every product that was produced for many years have run into
problems with the performance of that product at some time during the
life of the product because one or more elements or batches was found
to be defective. That's why most reliable and reputable manufacturers
and suppliers recall the product or give the buyer a refund.
The real bottom line to this discussion is, as it has always been;
Test, Test, Test, and keep Testing. But, do it in a reasonable and/or
logical manner, realizing that all things have their limit.
John A Tuttle
Brick, New Jersey, USA