Re: Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence

In article <1178340486.585243@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, frederick <lost@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>Mr.T wrote:
>> "frederick" <lost@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:1178322277.137906@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year
DPR
>>> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room
wall.
>>>   But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than
an
>>> ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
>>  And that is where you may be mistaken. As others have pointed out 
>>already,
>> that would ONLY be the case IF the dominant mode of failure was under
test,
>> or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be
so. In
>> fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious.
>>
>Of couse I "may" be mistaken.
>Did you read the bit in my original post where I said:
>"there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on"
>If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and 
>does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.

He did - as did Epson!

As it turned out, if Epson had simply undertaken reasonable consumer 
tests (not even extending to the "use and abuse" testing required under 
EU legislation) this problem would have come to light long before the 
product reached the shelves.  Instead, they placed far too much belief 
in the results of Wilhelm's measurements and ignored the normal consumer 
testing and feedback approach until the problem reached the mainstream 
press and lawcourts.  As you would see from some of the web pages I 
listed, Epson had to resort to exactly such consumer testing to 
significantly reduce the problem with improved product, with the testers 
signing Non Disclosure Agreements with them.  At that point, Wilhelm's 
test took a back seat and, whilst they still feature on Epson 
do***entation, they no longer make unlimited claims based on Wilhelm 
data.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
replying)