Subject:
|
Re: Mindstorms Wishlist
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:14:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2127 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:16:23 GMT, Steve Bliss
<blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Hmm. Could have been a customer-service problem. Little Timmy's mom calls LEGO
> Consumer Affairs, reports that little Timmy's RCX doesn't work anymore.
> Consumer Affairs sends a new one, with a return shipping label so mom can ship
> back the bad unit. Upon arrival, CAQA discovers there's nothing wrong with the
> RCX, but the fuse has blown. Seems like little Timmy was doing some
> power-supply experiments.
>
> Maybe LEGO really *is* saving enough money by skipping the power supply socket,
> to justify the (small) redesign. Seems unlikely, but who knows?
I wouldn't be surprised. When _I_ did power supply experiments as
above, I used a 4.5V light brick (and hoo-boy, does 220V AC through a
4.5V light make a nice bright flash). An RCX is just so much a
different cookie in terms of replacement cost.
Though I don't see any reason not to resell the "refurbished" (ie,
replaced the fuse) RCXs, assuming mint condition otherwise, of course.
Even if you just use them for your own internal supply it's not that
big a problem.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mindstorms Wishlist
|
| (...) Hmm. Could have been a customer-service problem. Little Timmy's mom calls LEGO Consumer Affairs, reports that little Timmy's RCX doesn't work anymore. Consumer Affairs sends a new one, with a return shipping label so mom can ship back the bad (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
