Quote: (Originally Posted by
si_b_lanzarote)
having fixed o rings discourages user maintenance, the user is less likely to remove and clean then replace such o rings for a number of reasons 1 they can sometimes be a bugger to get out. 2 the user may be afraid of stretching said o ring. 3 people are just plain lazy and are less likey to do something that requires effort.
thus keeping the loose o ring makes it more likely for the user to clean and lubricate the said o ring ensuring a better seal in the system.
i dare say every inspiration/ evolution owner cleans this o ring the most out of all user maintenance tasks as its the easiest to do, be honest how often do you remove the fixed o ring and clean it?
regards si
The above is an engineering philosophy for a specific part of a system.
Quote: (Originally Posted by
Gilles)
That is not very good engineering design. You are purposely increasing the risk of a fatal omission, in order to improve the chances of performing a somewhat less critical maintenance.
I was criticizing the philosophy, and if that is what it really was, it is flawed for exactly the reason stated. You do not (or should not) create a greater liklihood of a fatal mistake, in order to create a better chance for improved maintenance!
It was not intended as a critique of the unit, but rather one upon your assessment of the design philosophy that was applied. It is utter nonsense and I sincerely doubt that it was an actual philosophy applied by APD.
Not intended as an offence, but this is maybe an area that is not your expertise.