In my previous life "deficiency" was a really big word, we called it 'the D word.' Only one person in our company, employment ranging from 8K - 35K+ over the years, had the authority to use the word about our products or our suppliers' products. Because it meant we were paying for the solution. In engineering it means a product does not meet a documented minimum requirement, with substantial evidence proving that to be the case. And it can still be later disproven with substantial evidence to the contrary. During investigations we carefully documented costs to ensure that if it was indeed a deficiency we could segregate costs. Because of that background, I would not call this a deficiency. I would also not say that it is not deficient.dusty wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:07 pm
What cooling deficiency??? Has there been any detailed scientific testing showing that there is a deficiency? Was there any test data available from the DC-3300 that indicates it ran cooler than does the DC-6000.? How many DC motor burnouts have you heard about? I know of one failure and no indication it was heat related.
Remember - the two motor housings are almost duplicates of one another. YES, I know that the motors are not but I don't know that one runs hotter than the other.
IMO, that is the whole problem. The sales literature describes it: "New Motor Housing to accommodate the new, larger motor" I don't think that's what I received.
I believe that we might be jumping to conclusions that can not be substantiated.
As far as I know SS does not say the DC-6000 does or does not support continuous operation, so I probably would not call it deficient for not providing that capability. The DC-3300 motor states, on its label, that it is designed and rated for continuous operation. The DC-6000 motor does not, I think that is more a lack of info on the label than a quality of the motor. But today I have an informed opinion that the DC-3300 would provide continuous operation and the DC-6000 would not. My opinion is based almost entirely on the presence in one, and the absence in the other, of forced air cooling. Further substantiated by what little thermal evaluation I have done.
But this is a tool review, we ought to be able to state our opinions and observations as we develop them. Reviews like this are full of people stating their opinions as facts. To me, it is understood when someone states a judgment about a product it is an opinion whether they said so or not (IMO, IMHO, I think, I believe, etc.). If they have data that supports their opinion, so much the better. We have a limited amount of data on which to form an opinion. I imagine if there was scientific test data gathered on this product it was SS that did it, and I don't imagine they will share the data with us for our review. They are welcome to disagree, this is their forum too. Better yet, they could publish a user's manual stating any limitations in how the tool can be used. I received an installation guide, not a user's manual, for mine.
- David