(06-14-2016 11:25 PM)PoolQ Wrote: Okay so rife with speculation and the same old "If I can't think of any other reason then it must be what I think it is." This is not logic or scientific in any way.
Just because I provided a logical argument (admittedly with minimal substantiation) that directly counters your (completely unsubstantiated) argument, doesn't make mine "speculation" and yours fact.
YOU SAID: They did it for liability reasons.
I COUNTERED: Plenty of others have the same liability and they don't do it.
You call my logic "speculation"; while you assume yours is not.
Be advised I am nothing but logical.
I am trained as both a scientist and as an engineer, with all the higher-level sheepskins to prove it, where I certainly have been taught the difference between "speculation" and "logical" reasoning.
You actually have your adjectives reversed, since you haven't justified your speculation in the least, while I, at the very least, gave a viable counter argument that holds water.
It may simply be that you may not believe nor understand the logical reasoning I applied to counter your argument (that they did it for liability reasons), but if you simply don't believe nor perhaps understand my logical reasoning, that doesn't make your opinion fact and mine "speculation".
So please, don't call the kettle black when you, yourself, are merely speculating wildly. Your very words are an affront to logical thought processes.
I'm seeking facts and logical thought processes.
Since nobody from ResMed is going to call us up to tell us why they went non standard, we are going to have to logically reason this one out on our own, based on the facts that we know.
What facts do we know?
I am not afraid of facts.
To that end, I will list the following statements as "facts" that (I think) we know; but, if ANY of them are wrong - I ask anyone who knows more than I do to CORRECT them - because, as with all science and engineering - the truth is in whether the statements withstand the scrutiny of a public review.
For example, a review of the patent shows that the patent was NOT IMPLEMENTED fully; it was only (apparently) implemented just enough to make the equipment non standard (e.g., there does not seem to be evidence of any other resistor value used other than the 2.7K Ohm resistor).
Facts are facts.
So, my statements either hold up to public scrutiny - or they don't.
I'm OK with that.
I just want to get to the truth.
WHAT ARE THE FACTS WE KNOW & their logical intimations?
- We know that other manufacturers use standard power supplies
- We know what the ResMed patent "says" about sensing the power supply wattage (and subsequently, about prioritizing inspiration power)
- We know that ResMed does NOT follow the patent except in a single case (which we can logically intimate is just enough to make their A10 power supply non standard)
- We know that ResMed's batteries are horrendously overpriced for a 12 volt battery (although the pack is a nice package)
- We know that a DC-to-DC up converter is a commodity, except in the ResMed case, because of the non-standard power plug
- We know (from basic economic theory coursework) that Marketing always tries to convert a commodity into a monopoly (if they can get away with it)
- We know that RTs recommend ResMed's horrendously overpriced batteries and DC-to-DC converter (e.g., Sleepster just ran into that)
- We can logically intimate that "most people" trust their RT's advice
- Therefore we can logically intimate that people are paying more by following the monopolistic advice of their RT to use ResMed's highly priced battery and converter than if they bought the associated commodities
NOW WE COME TO THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE:
If there is actual VALUE TO THE USER directly attributed to the non-standard power supply, that would be the most valuable input this thread could ever receive!
While you might counter that the motor is painted pink inside, that is not a direct association to the design decision of using a non-standard power supply.
The motor might be faster, slower, more steady, lighter, heavier, cheaper, etc, but if that feature is not [u]directly associated with the non standard power supply[/b], then that feature is merely a difference, and not a difference attributable to the design decision of going with the non-standard power supply.
At the moment, nobody has proposed any concrete value that EXISTS that is directly associated with the highly non-standard power supply.
BTW, since you seem to be rather confused about facts versus speculation, that is either a true statement - or it is a false statement.
You tell me.
Is that statement above true or false?
I am honestly seeking a concrete association of the non-standard supply with an actual EXISTING BENEFIT (to the user) in the equipment.