Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 3
Let's all understand some things. JVC does not make the lamp...nor do Sony, Epson, etc... The manufacturers spec a lamp and have companies such as Philips, Osram, etc...make them. In the case of the RS40/50/60 and consumer equivalent (they are the same lamp and model...you don't see the talks about the consumer issues as they sell way less here where these are discussed) the lamp filament was inadequate to begin with. That is why there were so many premature failures. The newest version has fixed the issue
and the RSx5 series have those. Part of the reason you still see RS40 people having issues is use. Some people can take 2 years to put 300 hours on a unit, so they may just be getting to an issue.It does stink, but things like this can happen in electronics as we all know
How do you KNOW the newest version (003 w/flapper) has fixed the issue? If you do have proof, I'm sure a lot of folks here would like to see it, me included.
On the 2nd bolded point, this (quality issues) is certainly not unique to electronics, and it's not a result of anything unique about designing and manufacturing electronics or bulbs. In principle it's no different than Ford selling Pintos with gas tanks that explode or Chinese companies selling drywall that is defective (other than the consequences obviously being much less severe). The OEM failed to commit due diligence in developing their design, in managing their supplier and in verifying and validating their product. This is straight out of ISO 9001, AS9100, CMMI, etc. -- pick your favorite quality management system standard.
It is not rocket science to model or test thermal characteristics of a design. There are many good simulation applications available that a competent ME can use to determine if a cooling design is adequate. In my opinion, the fact that JVC has modified the enclosure design to alter the airflow after two configurations of the assembly have proven to be faulty shows that they did not adequately model or test the design before going to market. So don't count me as one who thinks this is the supplier's fault -- ensuring that a product meets its requirements is always the OEM's responsibility.
To their credit, they appear to be accepting responsibility and making it right. It appears to be a textbook case of inadequate quality assurance in planning the product.