May 17th, 2011, 18:01
May 17th, 2011, 18:03
May 19th, 2011, 2:50
May 19th, 2011, 15:07
May 19th, 2011, 16:41
May 19th, 2011, 18:02
May 20th, 2011, 3:09
lcoughey wrote:It certainly has a seized spindle, but seeing that the drive was previously opened, you may find your lab price higher as a result.
May 20th, 2011, 7:55
pcimage wrote:lcoughey wrote:It certainly has a seized spindle, but seeing that the drive was previously opened, you may find your lab price higher as a result.
Luke,
Don't think the OP actually said it had been opened, so chances are reasonable I think
Sean
May 20th, 2011, 12:47
May 20th, 2011, 17:21
May 24th, 2011, 5:04
May 24th, 2011, 9:14
fzabkar wrote:If it's a stiction fault rather than a seized motor
May 24th, 2011, 18:56
drc wrote:fzabkar wrote:If it's a stiction fault rather than a seized motor
How is he going to make that determination without opening the drive and (dangerously) attempting to manipulate the internal components?
May 24th, 2011, 19:05
May 24th, 2011, 19:08
fzabkar wrote:How did you arrive at the diagnosis of "stuck spindle" rather than the much less expensive diagnosis of "stiction" without even seeing the drive?
May 25th, 2011, 2:51
fzabkar wrote:drc wrote:fzabkar wrote:If it's a stiction fault rather than a seized motor
How is he going to make that determination without opening the drive and (dangerously) attempting to manipulate the internal components?
How did you arrive at the diagnosis of "stuck spindle" rather than the much less expensive diagnosis of "stiction" without even seeing the drive?
May 25th, 2011, 3:30
May 25th, 2011, 9:19
fzabkar wrote:drc wrote:fzabkar wrote:If it's a stiction fault rather than a seized motor
How is he going to make that determination without opening the drive and (dangerously) attempting to manipulate the internal components?
How did you arrive at the diagnosis of "stuck spindle" rather than the much less expensive diagnosis of "stiction" without even seeing the drive?
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.