Salvaging Components---Where Do YOU Get Them?

DoN. Nichols wrote:


Try this for a listing of hamfests in your state:
http://www.arrl.org/hamfests.html
technomaNge
--
Re: Ann Coulter:
The fact that she has more testosterone than you
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com (Donald Nichols) wrote:

There was? I've live in Vienna and had no clue there had been a hamfest here! How long ago was it last here? I've lived here for about 11 years now (lived down the road in Oakton before that).

Which one?

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com /
snipped-for-privacy@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    It used to be at the Community Center, with the tailgating overflowing to the parking lot for behind fire department.
    As for when it stopped being in the Vienna Community Center, that was something like seven years ago, at a guess.
    So -- you are local to me? I'm in Vienna, still. Do you know about CAMS (Chesapeake Area Metalworking Society)? Alternate months have meetings either in Maryland (Laurel, IIRC) or Virginia (not too far from Annandale, again).

    The current location is at the Northern Virginia Community College just off Rt 236, out a ways beyond Annandale. It is about the third parking lot out from 236 sometime in February.
    Sunday, Feb 25th 2007 is the next Vienna hamfest. (It is simply called "Winterfest" and run by the Vienna Wireless Society.) See the following URL.
    http://www.viennawireless.org/winterfest.php
    If you run into me at a hamfest, you will probably be able to identify me by the following combination of features:
1)    Large white beard.
2)    Fairly bushy hair -- length varies with time since last hot     weather. :-)
3)    Digital SLR (currently a Nikon D70) hung around my neck and     shoulder.
4)    Folding two-wheeled cart with a secondary pair of folding     stabilizing wheels, and a white canvas bag for smaller loot hung     from carabiner clips at the top of the handle.
    Enjoy,         DoN .
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com (Donald Nichols) wrote:

I guess I just missed them....

Yeah, I live here. I live next to Glydon Park on Ainstree Ct. I bumped into the Vienna Wireless Society in the park a few years ago having some sort of get together. I see they also meet at Vienna Elementary. I think I've seen them there before when I was there from one of the kids school events.

No, haven't heard of them. I'm not into metalworking (though I have some interest in getting into it). I'm reading and posting to this thread from the comp.robotics.misc group.

Thanks for the info.

I'll keep my eye out for you!
I've had pictures on my web site but it's been down for a few months because I've been too lazy to set it up again after a computer move. I should get it back on line and update it.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com /
snipped-for-privacy@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    [ ... ]

    Most people don't look in the town calendar for a hamfest in February. :-) (And, of course, it is no longer in the calendar, since it is no loner in the community center.

    O.K. That is not far away at all. I'm on Broadleaf Drive, just off of Beulah. (Between Beulah and Glyndon.)
    [ ... ]

    O.K. There is a sub-group which is sort of between metalworking and robotics -- the CNC sub-group. Robotics, but very specialized robotics. :-)
    There is no membership fee -- just show up. You can find a link to the CAMS website off of the dropbox site:
        <http://www.metalworking.com/
    I tend to not remember the URL, because I get the notices on the mailing list.
    [ ... ]

    [ ... ]

    O.K.
    O.K. You can see a couple of photos of me with concertinas on the web site in my .sig -- but those photos are several years old now, and the hair has gotten more towards the gray/white than it was then. Perhaps it is time to take some new ones. :-)
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's just up the road from me in Alexandria.
Andy
| Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:23:54 -0600, Hamad bin Turki Salami
composed:

It's ridiculous, even criminal, but that's economics. When something is written off, it must be scrapped in such a way that it cannot be reused. If the greenies weren't just a useless bunch of tree huggers, then maybe this could change.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I doubt it is the "Greenies" who cause senseless destruction of useful items.
Logic would dictate that they would rather see them recycled or reused.
My experience indicates that it is usually the fact that the item was a tax writeoff or a company fears liability, industrial spying or employee theft so they would rather destroy than have someone else benefit.
TMT
Franc Zabkar wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31 Jul 2006 07:51:05 -0700, the renowned "Too_Many_Tools"

Another reason is to avoid old, but still servicable, items from affecting the market by displacing new items. We often took old instruments such as temperature controls as 'trade ins' for new ones and permanently disabled them before trashing them.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
snipped-for-privacy@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:10:06 -0400, Spehro Pefhany

Another reason that often happens is that no one in the chain of command cares.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Another reason is to avoid old, but still servicable, items from affecting the market by displacing new items. We often took old instruments such as temperature controls as 'trade ins' for new ones and permanently disabled them before trashing them. "
"Another reason that often happens is that no one in the chain of command cares. "
Ah yes...two more reasons that I had overlooked but have seen in action firsthand....thanks for contributing them
It just occcurred to me that we haven't heard from Gunner. Gunner, while I may disagree on political issues with you at times I do highly respect your scrouging abilities...care to comment where you get your pickings?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

<snip>
> > I doubt it is the "Greenies" who cause senseless destruction of useful > items. > > Logic would dictate that they would rather see them recycled or reused. > > My experience indicates that it is usually the fact that the item was a > tax writeoff or a company fears liability, industrial spying or > employee theft so they would rather destroy than have someone else > benefit. > > TMT
I'm inclined to agree with Frank here. A fair number of environmental lobbyists lose sight of reality and become so extreme that businessmen and politicians don't feel that they're the kind of people they can do business with. They would help their cause if they weren't so extreme and were, dare I suggest it, more willing to compromise sometimes.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I would agree that the "greenies" can over do it at times....but it is a very real fact that the United States is a VERY wasteful country...which means that there is a cultural tendency to toss something instead of reusing or recycling it.
Consumer electronics is a very real example of it.
I also have seen what disregard for the environment can do to the countryside and the people who live there...so I try to reduce, reuse and recycle personally. I tend to be very successful in finding salvage items to support my varied interests to where I rarely buy anything new.
Could you give me some examples of how the "greenies" have added to the reduction of recycling a product? Not trying to bait you...I am truly interested in understanding the situation.
TMT
Christopher Tidy wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Easy. ROHS (removal of hazardous substances) regulations are driving manufacturers to grind up serviceable items to insure disposal in accordance with regulations. Surplus resale is not even an option.
Based on completely unscientific observation I believe that most of the destruction prior to this factor was driven my concerns about liability and market impact.
In the case of liability concerns virtually all of the arguments I've heard have been pretty far fetched. In one case I pointed out at a former employer that the disposal program cost 10 X the projected liability, and that the projected liability was clearly grossly overstated. The risk adviser (attorney) pointed to the PR impact of Ford's financial decision on Pinto gas tanks. In this case the product was large color monitors and the worry was HV breakdown causing fires. We had **never** seen this failure with the product in several million units. Of course there is always the light aircraft industry example. Until recently they were responsible for anything associated with even 75 year old products. Even worse, that 75 year old product was measured against modern standards and knowledge.
I know of too many companies that grind up old product for fear that they will compete with current stuff. I think most of this is at least a misplaced or at worst wishfully arrogant. It's a rare application that old product competes with new. It's also a rare company that has such a dominant position in the industry, and has had it for so long that any kind of destruction program can have any significant effect on the market. I suspect the reality is that old product can meet a need that new stuff would never be applied to. I also think that old stuff can help establish applications that would not otherwise be investigated, thus opening new markets.
Sigh.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Easy. ROHS (removal of hazardous substances) regulations are driving manufacturers to grind up serviceable items to insure disposal in accordance with regulations. Surplus resale is not even an option. "
No, the ROHS are forcing manufacturers to clean up after themselves and to insure that proper disposal actually happens....I have been in too many junkyards in the past for anyone to BS me about how reclaimation is done without supervision.
Okay...so the business is destroying the entire item instead of taking the effort to remove the hazardous material...and the grinding process now makes the entire device hazardous. So the company take advantage of cheap dumping costs instead of properly removing the hazardous material like they should be required to do so the remainder of the device is able to be recycled. So is this saying that the dumping costs should be raised to make recycling economical?
How about designing the item properly up front so the hazardous stuff is easy to recycle/contain? Oh yeah...that would mean spending more money up front and not dumping the problem on the public downstream....and we have got to protect that profit margin, don't we?
I have little patience for people and companies who want to dump their pollution on the environment that I and my famlily live in and our children will inherit.
TMT
Rich Osman wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

All true, but not my point. The way that ROHS regs are written, the most economical solution is currently destruction. The stuff is being reclaimed by removing the hazardous material and then everything is ground up and processed further. If a business doesn't use the most economical means for a task it's generally not in business much longer. That's not greed, it's survival. Survival is a much more powerful motivator.
Landfilling has been the norm for a long time. Recent regs are the result of some science, and some not so common sense. Manufacturers comply, but right now the industry is in transition. They are responsible for pre-regulation material, and the responsibility for both pre and post reg is so onerous that the only thing they can do is pull it back and dispose of

And the definition of hazardous is fluid over time. There is a move in Europe to ban the use of gold because it uses hazardous material and lots of energy to produce it. Hexavalent chromium is regulated in most jurisdictions, but some are discussing an outright chrome ban. Manufacturers today need to plan for a completely unknown future, for which regulators will hold them responsible regardless of the best practice at the time of manufacture.

Without question, dumping costs need to be raised to represent the real cost of disposal. That's more powerful, incentive. Even more importantly it lets market forces work. Technology changes rapidly, regulations change at a glacial pace and a rarely rescinded even when the need to change is glaring.

Again the definition of proper is time varying. My beef is making the manufacturer have to guess at the future rules.

Well yes, to stay in business in a competitive marketplace.
While you are clearly willing to assign negative motivations to most actions, the fact is that most of us in the manufacturers want to be able to drink the water and breath the air. The problem is the unintended consequences of draconian and inflexible regulations.
Today's TV's are substantially less reliable than those of two years ago due to the loss of lead in solder. There will be far more of these landfilled over the same period today as would have been 5 years ago. The advent of HD and new display technologies is will likely cause the old sets to be retired for want of features (particularly if the feds stick to their cut over dates for digital modes.) And the new ones will only last a few years. Add to this increase rate and landfilling and the move to import businesses dominating home entertainment with a half-life of a year, there's going to be a sharp increase in landfilled electronics or expensive (to consumers) recycling programs that few anticipate.

Yup, we who build the stuff have a magic way to avoid the effects and completely lack the foresight to see the problems or their significance.
Look, the basic problem is associating the real costs with any action. Right now that isn't happening, in either direction. That's the area that needs real work in the regulations. If that happens the market will find an optimum and pretty rapidly. It'll also level the playing field and reduce the value of being a fly by night operator.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not suggesting that "greenies" actually reduce the extent to which products are recycled, or have any kind of negative effect on how environmentally friendly we are. I'm just suggesting that at times they are so extreme that people take little notice of them, and so they have little positive effect. Sometimes they just aren't very good at persuading people who don't share their point of view.
Best wishes,
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:18:49 +0000, Christopher Tidy

Tell that to the insurance companies of all the ski resorts and housing projects the Greenies have burned to the ground.

"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism. As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My comment was in relation to "how greenies cause the destruction of surplus equipment that can be reused"....and you know it.
As for radicals, they can be found in any ideology...gun lovers seem to be having a big push on running the body count lately in the United States...does that make all gun lovers guilty?
Now getting back to the topic Gunner, how about some practical advice on scrouging? ;<)
TMT
Gunner wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31 Jul 2006 07:51:05 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"

The Australian Greens propose to legalise untested, recreational, mind altering *drugs*, and I don't just mean dope. OTOH, they are completely against GM *food*. Logic? I don't think so.
What I would like the greenies to do is to lobby for mandatory paperless service manuals for all consumer goods to be made freely available via the Internet. That would keep a lot of otherwise repairable appliances out of the "recycle" bin.
I would also mandate that all spare parts and consumables be priced to reflect the cost of the appliance. For example, I don't want to have to dump a $100 DVD player because a laser assembly costs $200, even if it were available. Nor should I be forced to purchase a new mobile phone because of the cost of a replacement battery, nor do I want to trash a $100 printer because a pair of cartridges costs $120.
AFAIK, current Australian legislation requires that manufacturers provide spare parts for a reasonable period (7 years?), but this is often circumvented by ridiculous pricing practices.
Maybe the Greenies should divert their attention from plastic bags, which are actually useful, and focus instead on the electronic goods that find their way prematurely into the landfill.
Another positive move would be to remove government imposts on replacement parts and repair charges.
Instead, the only proposal the Australian Greens have floated in recent times is a suite of 30 additional taxes which would make disposal more expensive to the consumer. Rather than making it more painful to throw things away, the Greens should be thinking about how to make it easier to hang on to what we have.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.