CPAPtalk.com

For the record, I am not in the least offended by the direction this thread has taken. Nor am I surprised. All of us have our own perspectives on things. It's probably worth continuing this thread through to its logical conclusion too, so that folks can hash this out.

Obviously, to those who haven't experienced the phenomenon in question, the machines work just fine. For them there is no problem. I'm not sure what else there is to discuss about the cases when the machine works just fine.

Consider how you might feel though if you bought a car which had an air conditioner which wouldn't work between 50 and 60 mph. Would that be enough to be considered a design flaw? You might not even notice it most of the time. For those folks who normally spend most of their time driving over 70 mph, it's not much of a problem. But if you had a restriction on your license that required you to not exceed 60 mph, you might consider this problem to be a design flaw.

How about if you purchased a computer and you wanted to run 10 programs on it. Suppose only one program wouldn't run, but that program happened to be the one you used the most. Would you consider the computer to be flawed? This sort of thing has been a major PITA for many folks, and operating system developers have been beaten up repeatedly about it so that this sort of problem isn't nearly as prevalent as it once was. It used to be a serious problem.

I'm not sure why we should expect less of medical equipment, such as the Remstar-auto or the BiPAP-auto, than we would of other devices we purchase. If anything, the expectations for medical equipment should be higher. I'd also hasten to suggest that if one were to ask a member of the Respironics' legal team whether the possibility of runaway pressure were considered a design flaw, the answer would be predictable. I expect that the possibility of runaway pressure causing central apnea would scare the lawyers.

All just my perspective, of course.

Regards,
Bill

dsm wrote:It is not a very good argument to say "oh my machine doesn't do that, so I think you are wrong".

By the same token, it is not a very good argument to say, "Oh, my machine does that, so I think you are wrong."

The issue is not one of believing someone is right and someone is wrong. The issue is that someone is being told their problem has occurred because their machine is defective. I believe that claim is erroneous.

dsm wrote:but please don't take the stupid approach

Nothing personal, no name-calling, no euphemisms, no accusations.

If I am the one referred to, then I say the machine/machines all sux...give up on them. No company makes a perfect machine worth a crap. But, I will keep using mine. As far as problems with a machine, I've had my share. I had a bad one from the day of purchase. I've never tried to judge many by one. I tried telling him my experiences with mine, period.

This site doesn't always sign you in.

Anonymous wrote:

dsm wrote:It is not a very good argument to say "oh my machine doesn't do that, so I think you are wrong".

By the same token, it is not a very good argument to say, "Oh, my machine does that, so I think you are wrong."

The issue is not one of believing someone is right and someone is wrong. The issue is that someone is being told their problem has occurred because their machine is defective. I believe that claim is erroneous.

dsm wrote:but please don't take the stupid approach

Nothing personal, no name-calling, no euphemisms, no accusations.

Anon,


This is not what has been happening.

What has been happening is

Person A: "Oh my machine does this. I think it is a problem".

Person B: "I have used that machine & it never did that" or
Person B: "Oh no one else has complained of that" or
Person B: "I think you are mistaken" or
Person B: "This problem is just one person's opinion" or .......

The point here is, how do we get to discuss what appear to be algorithm issues & let the discussion flow normally such that the person describing the problem gets treated like they do have a problem.

People generally do not come here & invent problems. Yes some may think they have a problem when they don't but that will usually be very clear in the thread and can usually be dealt with by leading the person to the correct conclusion.

When it is clear that someone thinks they have a problem & is willing to discuss it & experiment or research it then they must be given that encouragement.

Again I say if someone is describing what may be a machine problem and you as a poster here have an answer other than "you must be wrong", then draw the thread toward the answer that will explain the problem to everyone's satisfaction.

If the issue is one on a highly technical matter & you have no technical or mechanical expertise or background then the prudent thing is to either keep out of the thread or make it perfectly clear you don't understand the technical nature of ther issues when chiming in.

What I would like to see is threads discussing machine problems get analysed and taken to some conclusion & not squashed (especially if by by weak or fallacious arguments).

DSM

dsm wrote:What has been happening is

Person A: "Oh my machine does this. I think it is a problem".
Person B: "I have used that machine & it never did that" or
Person B: "Oh no one else has complained of that" or
Person B: "I think you are mistaken" or
Person B: "This problem is just one person's opinion" or .......

dsm, on this thread, what has happened is this:

dllfo: "Oh, my machine does this. I think it is a problem."

NightHawkeye: "The algorithms on your machine are screwed up. Your machine has a design flaw."

Guest: "I don't think you can assume the problems he described are the result of a flaw/defect."

rested gal: "I don't think you can assume there is an algorithm problem, and here are some suggestions that may may solve the problems you described."

sthnreb: "I have that machine and I have never experienced that problem, and here are some suggestions that may solve the problems you described."

dsm: some obscure references to Pollyanna and cookies in a personal attack on rested gal

dsm wrote:Again I say if someone is describing what may be a machine problem and you as a poster here have an answer other than "you must be wrong", then draw the thread toward the answer that will explain the problem to everyone's satisfaction.

No one said the poster was wrong and that he wasn't experiencing the problems he described. They addressed the problems he described and offered advice. One individual suggested he thought the problem was the result of screwed up algorithms and a design flaw. Other individuals suggested they did not think the problem was the result of screwed up algorithms or a design flaw, but that the problems could be the result of a myriad of different issues and offered advice on those issues.

dsm wrote:If the issue is one on a highly technical matter & you have no technical or mechanical expertise or background then the prudent thing is to either keep out of the thread or make it perfectly clear you don't understand the issues when chiming in.

"Keep out of the thread"
dsm, if that is how you feel, then you're in the wrong forum. Perhaps you would be more comfortable and get less "hot under the collar" on a forum where you are dealing with people who you consider your equals, such as a forum specifically and exclusively for engineers, where you wouldn't have to admonish anyone to "keep out of the thread". This forum is for everyone on cpap, regardless of their technical or mechanical expertise or background.

What I would like to see in threads discussing machine problems, is that these problems are analyzed and taken to some conclusion & not squashed (especially if by weak or fallacious argument that the problems are caused by screwed up algorithms and design flaws).

Linda3032 wrote:Wow DSM,

I'm not really sure who your "Pollyana" is, but I sure hope you are NOT referring to RG. Because she is one of the most helpful, most knowledgeable, posters on this board. Plus, she is also the MOST polite. Her post was very respectful to Nighthawkeye in offering her "take" on the situation.

RG is the first to admit she is not an "engineer", nor has the most technical information here. But she is very knowledgeable about the causes and affects of cpap problems. The military has a saying KISS - keep it simple stupid. And my guess would be that the majority of the problems that newbies experience are "grass root" problems that can be solved by "the basics". Why worry about rocket science when you are trying to fix a lawn mower?

DSM, you talk about "stupid exchanges"? I don't think our "Pollyana" would ever have written such insulting words.

Bravo, Linda!

Whoop Whoop - Guest attack alert

DSM

Guest wrote:What I would like to see in threads discussing machine problems, is that these problems are analyzed and taken to some conclusion & not squashed (especially if by weak or fallacious argument that the problems are caused by screwed up algorithms and design flaws).

I noticed, Guest, that you did not attempt to discuss any of the points I made in my posts specifically addressing that issue. You offered instead an emotionally based argument; not at all what you said you wanted.

Regards,
Bill

NightHawkeye wrote:I noticed, Guest, that you did not attempt to discuss any of the points I made in my posts specifically addressing that issue.

I thought rested gal and sthnreb took care of that very nicely. No need to be redundant.

Guest wrote:I thought rested gal and sthnreb took care of that very nicely. No need to be redundant.

No response to the rebuttal at 5:42 pm?

Debating with guests can be a bit like dealing with the Klu Klux Klan

somebody wrote:....and will the Pollyannas of this board please just go bake cookies for a while!

Did someone mentionCOOKIES !!!!!!?

ooops

ROTFL, Ric!!

I'd give ya one, but I'm not much of a pollyanna-cook...LOL!! Left 'em in the oven too long while reading the amazing turn this thread took.

dllfo, if you're still with us, sorry it got so off track. Hope you're getting good treatment again. And hope you'll let us know how it's going.